Cold fusion reactor independently verified, has 10,000 times the energy density of gas

Share This article

Against all probability, a device that purports to use cold fusion to generate vast amounts of power has been verified by a panel of independent scientists. The research paper, which hasn’t yet undergone peer review, seems to confirm both the existence of cold fusion, and its potency: The cold fusion device being tested has roughly 10,000 times the energy density and 1,000 times the power density of gasoline. Even allowing for a massively conservative margin of error, the scientists say that the cold fusion device they tested is 10 times more powerful than gasoline — which is currently the best fuel readily available to mankind.

The device being tested, which is called the Energy Catalyzer (E-Cat for short), was created by Andrea Rossi. Rossi has been claiming for the past two years that he had finally cracked cold fusion, but much to the chagrin of the scientific community he hasn’t allowed anyone to independently analyze the device — until now. While it sounds like the scientists had a fairly free rein while testing the E-Cat, we should stress that they still don’t know exactly what’s going on inside the sealed steel cylinder reactor. Still, the seven scientists, all from good European universities, obviously felt confident enough with their findings to publish the research paper.

As for what’s happening inside the cold fusion reactor, Andrea Rossi and his colleague Sergio Focardi have previously said their device works by infusing hydrogen into nickel, transmuting the nickel into copper and releasing a large amount of heat. While Rossi hasn’t provided much in the way of details — he’s a very secretive man, it seems — we can infer some knowledge from NASA’s own research into cold fusion. Basically, hydrogen ions (single protons) are sucked into a nickel lattice (pictured right); the nickel’s electrons are forced into the hydrogen to produce neutrons; the nickel nuclei absorb these neutrons; the neutrons are stripped of their electrons to become protons; and thus the nickel goes up in atomic number from 28 to 29, becoming copper.

This process, like the “conventional” fusion of hydrogen atoms into helium, produces a lot of heat. (See: 500MW from half a gram of hydrogen: The hunt for fusion power heats up.) The main difference, though, is that the cold fusion process (also known as LENR, or low energy nuclear reaction) produces very slow moving neutrons which don’t create ionizing radiation or radioactive waste. Real fusion, on the other hand, produces fast neutrons that decimate everything in their path. In short, LENR is fairly safe — safe enough that NASA dreams of one day putting a cold fusion reactor in every home, car, and plane. Nickel and hydrogen, incidentally, are much cheaper and cleaner fuels than gasoline.

As far as we can tell, the main barrier to cold fusion — as with normal fusion — is producing more energy than you put in. In NASA’s tests, it takes a lot more energy to fuse the nickel and hydrogen than is produced by the reaction. Rossi, it would seem, has discovered a secret sauce that significantly reduces the amount of energy required to start the reaction. As for what the secret sauce is, no one knows — in the research paper, the independent scientists simply refer to it as “unknown additives.” All told, the E-Cat seems to have a power density of 4.4×105 W/kg, and an energy density of 5.1×107 Wh/kg.

If Rossi and Focardi’s cold fusion technology turns out to be real — if the E-Cat really has 10,000 times the energy density and 1,000 times the power density of gasoline — then the world will change, very, very quickly. Stay tuned; we’ll let you know when — or if — the E-Cat passes peer review.

Research paper: arXiv:1305.3913 – “Indication of anomalous heat energy production in a reactor device”

Post a Comment

On Nov. 2, John Brandon published a story on Andrea Rossi and his claim of an “energy catalyzer” on Fox News.

I will address a few issues and obvious factual errors.

Rossi is not a physicist. He earned a bachelor’s degree in 1973 in
the philosophy of science and engineering from the University of Milan’s
School of Philosophy.

In 1979, Rossi obtained a bachelor’s degree in chemical engineering
from the University of Kensington, in California. That university was
determined to be a diploma mill and was shut down by officials in
California and Hawaii, according to CBS News.

Rossi did not demonstrate his device at the University of Bologna.
All of his demonstrations have taken place at an empty industrial suite
behind a tire repair shop in Bologna.

Brandon obtained a lot of his information from Sterling Allan.
Brandon writes that Allan is the CEO of an “alternative energy news
agency.” Allan is the “CEO” of a free energy Web site. Allan, a
self-proclaimed “Ambassador of Jesus Christ: First and Second comings,”
also believed a prophecy in the Bible Code that he should run for president of the United States.

Brandon quoted Allan’s claim that Rossi claimed he generated a 470
kilowatt energy output. But Brandon neglected to mention the 400
kilowatt generator outside the building connected to and used to
“pre-heat” Rossi’s device.

Brandon used a two-year old quote from Pamela Mosier-Boss, a
researcher at the U.S. Navy’s Space and Naval Warfare Systems Center San
Diego, from an entirely different experiment that gives the appearance
she is supporting Rossi’s claim.

Brandon wrote that Rossi told him that researcher Paul Swanson with
SPAWAR San Diego could vouch for Rossi’s demonstration. Brandon spoke
with Swanson. He couldn’t.

Brandon speculated, based on what he read on Allan’s blog, that
SPAWAR San Diego was Rossi’s mysterious customer and that they measured
and verified Rossi’s test.

I asked James Fallin, the director of public affairs at SPAWAR San
Diego, “is there any truth to the suggestion published on Fox News that
SPAWAR is, or is considering purchasing any device from Andrea Rossi?”

“No truth at all,” Fallin wrote.
“

http://classicalvalues.com/ TallDave

AlainCo

Just for those still following the story

Elforsk talk of E-cat, their test, a future synthesis on LENR companies…

As Rossi’s e-Cat is barely staying alive on life support, and long
time friends and bloggers are losing interest, and closing down blogs,
Mr. Roger Green is trying to cash in as the e-Cat gasps its last few
breaths, to try and recoup his money back, leaving these last few rounds
of investors holding the bag.

What you will find is that Roger Green and Andrea Rossi have reached a new low.

They are selling “shares” in a Japan organization that does not exist
yet, to buy a “license” that does not exist yet, and the “license” is
for products that do not exist, have never existed, and will never
exist.

This article is an update to two articles – here are the links to those articles:

More Legal Fraud in Rossi Farce

The details in the article “More Legal Fraud in Rossi Farce” related
to violations of law and the fraudulent use of signatures claiming to be
the signature of Mr. Andrea Rossi, when it clearly is/was not. We add
another signature to that article.

E-Cat Australia Roger Green

The article “E-Cat Australia Roger Green” was a shining light on the
details of how Mr. Green and Mr. Rossi carried on their fraud and scam
including the posting of over 100 emails. We have emails from Mr. Roger
Green on this update also but the documents speak for themselves so
posting the emails is not required.

*******

We would like to thank Doug Marker, Australia/new Zealand, for passing on this information.

This latest round of attempts to get people’s money by selling
licenses or shares of a license by fraud and a scam includes claiming to
have products that do not exist, and technology that does not exist –
started when Mr. Roger Green sent out a new round of documents to
potential investors.

Highlights of the hurried plea for more suckers to jump on the band wagon is below:

“Be quick. As I say, be quick, I want to have this completed by this weekend

Andrea Rossi has just released first
option to me (Roger Green) E-cat Australia PTY, LTD (Founder
Breakthru-Technologies) for the exclusive E-cat Technology for the
JAPANESE market place!

This is based on having successfully
raised investment into the Spain (completed) African Continent
(completed) and India, Indonesia, South Korea, South East Asia and
NZ/Australian market places.

Min parcels of shares start at $25,000.”

*******

The first document sent from Mr. Roger Green about this latest round
of fraudulent licenses, that we would like to discuss, is the agreement
between Mr. Roger Green and Mr. Andrea Rossi.

Mr. Green calls it his “To Whom It May Concern” document.

The first thing that stands out is that these scam artists are
learning it seems. You will notice the content, or lack thereof, of
this agreement was mentioned many times in the various documents on this
website. You will notice this document was missing in the first round
of fraudulent license sales as documented in the emails between Mr.
Roger Green and Robert in the emails posted here on this website.

Our first question is why did these two scam artists think this
document was needed in the first place? If Mr. Green had already
purchased these two licenses, all he had to do was provide a copy of
that purchase. It would only have any meaning if Mr. Green DID NOT have
either of these two licenses and therefore is acting as an agent for
Mr. Rossi, which therefore makes him a party to this fraud, a clear case
for a RICO charge, (conspiracy and collusion to defraud investors).
This document can be used by anyone, in any court of law, who has put
any money into the Andrea Rossi scam and is tired of waiting for the
sales and profit that will never come, into a RICO case, and make many
times their original investment back. (Even if they did not have any
dealings with Mr. Green.)

What the ramifications are of
Rossi using a false address for his fraud and scam will be addressed in
another article on the legalities of Ross’s scam. It is enough to note
here that Rossi is using a fake and phony business address.

commercialization, of the Japan and Israel E-Cat license which is the license to

be able to distribute and sell all current and future E cat products.

Has
Rossi’s new or old, business partners given Rossi the authority to do
this? What exactly are “current and future E cat products”? I have searched high and low, and I cannot find a definition for an e-Cat anywhere.

The technology, science, and
description of what Andrea Rossi calls an e-Cat has changed so much
through the years Mr. Focardi would not recognize it anymore.

The
only utility patent Rossi received or will ever receive on the e-Cat
does not match any description of anything Rossi calls an e-Cat.

So
the word e-Cat used in a legal document is meaningless unless it is
accompanied with a legal description. And anyone who signs a legal
document without that description in it is only asking for trouble, and
possible loss of all funds relating to that document.

I must add that practically all
the world’s Territories have been already licensed. Soon we will
organize a convention of all our Licensees, for the presentation of the
E-Cat, in the final shape that will be marketed, and in that occasion we
will give the full list of all our Licensees. The most important
Territories in which we have not yet found the right licensee are:

1- Russia

2- Japan

We take this occasion to solicit
the People interested to these territories to contact us. Attention: we
give the licences [sic] only to Organizations which are settled inside
the Territories for which they want to buy the license.

Warm Regards,

Andrea Rossi

CEO of Leonardo Corp.

This story broke on ecatnews, and went from there all over the internet.

How
come Roger Green doesn’t mention in his plea for fraud partners – I
mean investors – that they must be “settled inside Japan or Israel”?
Does Rossi know what Roger Green is up to? Or has Rossi told one more
lie, it would not be his first of course.

I
guess Rossi never sold the Japan license after all – but wait a minute
Roger Green in the emails sent to Robert, says otherwise. Please read
what Roger Green said about what licenses were available here.

Fraud in 2012 – e-cat Australia – Roger Green & Andrea Ross

Roger Green has our permission in exclusivity to organise [sic] investors into The

Japanese and Israel Exclusive E cat Licenses and after which, that said

company, has the right to sell shares and equity

So sub-licenses of the license and sub-licenses of sub-licenses. Turtles on turtles all the way down!

The shareholders and the sub-licensees must not be connected, directly or

indirectly, to Competitors of Leonardo Corporation.

Who
are these competitors? We know of no person or company selling any
cold fusion/LENR device except for the fraud and scam of Andrea Rossi
and his “licensees.” The RICO case just keeps getting larger and
larger.

This letter of intention is signed on January 15th, 2013

Roger Green sure acts fast.

Signed

Roger Green

Eco Global Fuels

Signed

Andrea Rossi

LEONARDO CORPORATION

Andrea Rossi,

President

Screen shot from the Florida Secretary of State for Corporations, showing the real and legal address of Leonardo Corporation.

EcoGlobalFuels has been granted the option to acquire the exclusive
right to distribute the ECAT Technology for the country of JAPAN.

What
does “distribute the ECAT Technology” even mean? Can they manufacture
and sell e-Cats? Or can they just sell what someone else
manufacturers? If that is the case who is going to do the
manufacturing? What is “ECAT Technology”?

EcoGlobalFuels has been provided with this option to acquire the Ecat
Distribution License for Japan, because of its successful activities in
sourcing the funds for the Ecat Distribution Licenses for Australia,
Indonesia, South Korea, India, Singapore, Vietnam, Malaysia, Burma,
Spain and recently the entire African Continent.

What is a “Ecat Distribution License”? Where is this defined or explained?

This option has been granted by the owner of the ECAT Technology,
Leonardo Corporation. Leonardo Corporation has been created by the
inventor Andrea Rossi of Italy.

To build a team that will collectively own and manage the Japanese
ECAT license the founder member Roger Green, invites other interested
individuals and/or parties to participate.

For the sum of 50,000 US$, a participation of 10% equity in the
Japanese Ecat License can be acquired. 10% is considered the minimum
parcel of shares. More parcels of shares can be purchased. A maximum of
four of these parcels of shares are available.

40 % equity is available for USD $200,000

Once the license payment has been paid in, a new company will be
formed, “ECAT JAPAN” limited. ECAT JAPAN will then be the owner of
exclusive ECAT Distribution license for current and all future products
from Leonardo Corporation. ECAT JAPAN will issue share certificates,
once all participants are known and payment has been received from
investors. The investors into E cat Japan will decide after the license
has been secured, where to register the company “E cat Japan”. A
business plan will also be written at this time.

So
Roger Green is asking 1-4 people to send him $50,000-$200,000 when no
shares, stock, or the company “ECAT JAPAN” do not even exist yet.

These shares will be divided as follows:

EcoglobalFuels will own 60%. All other shareholders will collectively
own the other 40% in relation to their individual participation amount.

Why
does EcoglobalFuels get to own 60% of the future company (that does not
exist yet) for doing nothing but collecting $50,000-$200,000 from 1-4
stupid and gullible people?

There is a total of 1,000,000 shares (one million).

How
does Roger Green know this when the company has not even been created
yet to issue the shares, maybe the company will want to issue 2,000,000
shares, how does he know? Oh yes, because he will own 60% of the company
so no one else will have a say in anything the company will do.

400,000 shares are available to purchase at current value 0.50 cents. Total investment for 40% equity is $200,000 USD.

Currently, Roger Green, CEO of EcoGlobalFuels is handing all transactions.

2. Particpation [sic] Confirmation Letter

Each participant will receive the following confirmation letter
signed by Roger Green upon receipt of payment for the participation in
ECAT JAPAN

“This letter is to confirm that a new company, to be formed (“ECAT
Japan”), has entered into a licensing agreement with Andrea Rossi,
inventor and manufacturer of the ECAT Technology, via his Leonardo
Corporation, Florida USA. To purchase the exclusive license for Japan,
for present and all future technology involving the “ECAT” systems for
generating thermal heat and electricity.

So now all you legally get is a letter from Roger Green for your $50,000-$200,000.

ECAT JAPAN releases shares to raise this capital.

There is a total of 1 Million shares.

How can there be 1 million shares, when the company does not exist?

Eco Global Fuels / Roger Green will retain 60 % founder shares

ECAT JAPAN will issue shares to investors to raise 200,000 US$

Wait
a minute, Roger Green just said that the company will not be created
until after he receives the $200,000, which comes first Roger Green?
Now Roger is saying that the company which will not exist until he
receives the $200,000 will issue the shares to raise the $200,000? What a
scam and fraud this whole e-Cat project is turning out to be.

Each unit share value is 0.50 cent. There are 400,000 shares for sale

A “min.investment” parcel of shares is 50.000 US$.

There is a max. 4 parcel of shares available.(4x $50,000=$200,000)

50,000 US$ will represent 100,000 shares.

This to confirm that you Mr/Mrs ……………..

Address………………………………………………………………………………………

has/have purchased …… …….shares of ECAT JAPAN

Signed………………………………..

Ecat Japan will be formed and registered as soon as all payment have been

received. A copy of the agreed license with Leonardo Corp is available for your

reference along with a letter of authorization from Andrea Rossi/ inventor E cat

Technology and President of Leonardo Corporation.

Signed…………………Date………..Roger Green, CEO, Eco Global Fuels

“Ecat
Japan will be formed and registered as soon as all payment have been
received.” Wait a minute Roger Green, you just said above that the
company ECAT Japan was to issue the shares to raise the $200,000. Which
comes first, the shares, or the company that issues the shares?

October is dead, taking with it any hope I had that Andrea Rossi would deliver on yet another claim. For some time now, it has been obvious to most that Rossi cannot be trusted. Even his supporters admit he lies as they excuse him for one reason or another. In business, gaining such a reputation can be damaging but not always fatal. If you are new to this saga, I urge you to sample eCatNews archives. This accusatory post does not come from a pseudo-sceptic but from someone who has spent countless hours for the best part of two years living in hope of an eCat breakthrough. Despite some discomfort, I allowed all sides of the argument to air in an attempt to immunise myself and other readers from our own ignorance. Even so, and despite a constant plea for caution, I retained a small measure of hope that the gathering signs were wrong. I can no longer ignore the fact that Andrea Rossi is acting like a fraudster.

I have no idea if he is conducting a criminal enterprise but he is certainly performing a good impression of doing so. Since I remain hopeful about LENR as a whole, I give small measure to the dream that he has something less than he claims but still interesting. I would not bank on that but dream anyway. Each time some deadline approaches, he changes tack, often making ever-increasing outlandish claims that have become tiringly predictable. The man is a liar and if you give him money on the strength of his word you are more trusting than me. I value trust more than money. Some people value money above everything. If you are more trusting than me, then you are a saint. Over the life of eCatNews, I conducted an experiment in honesty , abandoning 10,000 copies of my novel on the streets, remote paths, mountain tops, park benches, bus stops and hundreds of other locations around Scotland. Over 800 strangers found and then jumped through hoops to pay for their copy. I would trust any of them but I would not trust Rossi.

We are led to believe that five years ago he was heating his factory in Italy with a multi-kW eCat, implying a robust, safe and commercially viable product.

Two years ago, he told us that he had a secret customer and was under an NDA preventing him from revealing who it was. In October last year, another secret customer bought the 1MW plant. At various stages we have been told about up to 13 1MW plants and given assurances that he would soon reveal all.

This is almost exactly what he said in 2010. The million-unit factory appears to have been forgotten and recently we were told that the University of Bologna would conduct and publish the results of independent tests in mid-October. While it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that such a test has now happened, I put my new belief in his inability to tell the truth above the remote possibility that he will deliver on that or any other promise of substance.

To the hard sceptics – you were right. To the pseudosceps – I am no longer confident in that label although you still puzzle me

. Proclaimed certainty in an uncertain sphere puzzles me. While I have come to side with your view of Rossi and Defkalion, I am far from convinced when anyone rules with absolute confidence against LENR. To my fellow bloggers, we do our readers a disservice if we do not continue to examine our own prejudices and be as ready to change our views as we urge the deniers to do. Many people scoff at the power of these blogs but they are wrong. It is all too easy to become a useful idiot to one side or the other. Real people get hurt. Stand back, look at your history – what you got right and what you got wrong – and learn from it.

I really do hope that my conclusions are in error. If so, I will gladly apologise. The world needs a miracle more than anyone’s misplaced pride. Until then, if you have given this man money, it is time to push him hard. Do not give him anything unless any promise he makes is accompanied by hard evidence. The first people to prod Madoff got their money back before it all collapsed. You have been warned.

http://www.libertynewspost.com/ Liberty Newspost

Clearly some people have a lot to lose if Rossi’s E-cat proves out. The people posting that it is a scam represent certain interest, some are sociopaths- nut cases. Rossi calls them “Snakes”. Look at the evidence. Disregard anything you read from “New Energy Times” or Maryyugo. They both have an agenda.

Meanwhile, we all should hope and pray that Rossi’s invention and others like it are successful.

Defkalion Energy and Brillouin Energy are two other companies that are racing forward with this technology Low Energy Nuclear Reactions or “Quantum Heat” machines.

chojin999

I don’t work in the industry. Maybe you do?

And censoring my posts shows who is protecting who and which interests here…

Promoting and allowing a scam like this is a shame.

dns7950

FFS CHOJIN JUST STFU AND GTFO! I am so glad they deleted your comment, they should delete every comment you make. I wish they could delete YOU, everybody would be better off without you! PLEASE for the love of god, stop babbling nonsense about sheep, scams, frauds and fakes! Get a life you pathetic loser!

http://fedgeno.com/ Fedge

Well think about it. If it worked and wasn’t a scam, the inventor would patent it and either get rich or give everyone permission to use it. There’s no need for secrecy surrounding an invention. Wanna buy a Bedini motor?

Federico Capoano

if you guys are the defendants of those poor souls that are being fooled, why don’t you go defending other poor souls that are even more exploited and fooled aroung the world who need you?

Entrepreneurs who choose to risk and invest their money in this technology do not just get drunk and choose to invest in it in 5 minutes. They surely have thought months or years about it. They must have some information we don’t have.
To have gained the money they have, they can’t be dumbasses like you who waste your time in commenting internet posts around all the websites that talk about LENR. They must have worked hard to earn it, so their choice of investing in it is thousands of times more meaningful than your yelling, rethoric, annoying comments around the web.

http://fedgeno.com/ Fedge

And you’re who?

FactsAreFun

Nobody says that people become suckers on five minutes. It takes a whole life to never learn the old saying that if something looks too good to be true, it always is.

Brad Arnold

Yeah, “if something looks too good to be true, it always is.” That is rich buddy. Here are some of your fellows that have the same faulty heuristic:

“The demonstration that no possible combination of known substances, known forms of machinery, and known forms of force can be united in a practicable machine by which men shall fly for long distances through the air, seems to the writer as complete as it is possible for the demonstration of any physical fact to be.” – astronomer S. Newcomb, 1906

“Such startling announcements as these should be depreciated as being unworthy of science and mischievous to to its true progress” – Sir William Siemens, 1880, on Edison’s announcement of a successful light bulb.

“..so many centuries after the Creation it is unlikely that anyone couldfind hitherto unknown lands of any value.” – committee advising Ferdinand and Isabella regarding Columbus’ proposal, 1486

FactsAreFun

Yawn. Sir Newcomb is giving his personal opinion to a newspaper. That’s not “science” talking but one guy making a donkey out of himself in private. He did, by the way, revise his statements once it was obvious how false they were.

I don’t know what Siemens was thinking when he allegedly said those things. Since I don’t have the actual source, it might well be taken out of context. Would you mind citing the whole thing and not just one sentence?

As for the Columbus story… that’s another yawner. You have religious politicians talking large animal droppings (sounds familiar?). How that would relate to this nonsense is not clear to me. We are not talking about the discovery of new lands but about the violations of some pretty trivial physics, which has never been successfully demonstrated, while “new lands” were found basically continuously during that period.

But what you are basically saying is that your only understanding of science is through citations of irrelevant sources, which have nothing to do with science, to begin with?

That’s a sure sign of suckerdom, for sure.

:-)

AlainCo

The problem is your incompetence in physics.

It is clear for anyone knowing quantum mechanics in lattice, that claiming impossibility of LENR because of free-space behavior, is like rejecting the existence of mole using birds aerodynamics.

Yeong Kim from Purdue just said it so:

“I clearly recognized that the conventional nuclear scattering theory at positive energies cannot directly be applied to nuclear reactions involving deuterons bound in a metal, which is a negative-energy bound-state problem. Quantum scattering theory describing the Coulomb barrier problem is applicable to scattering experiments with nuclear beams.When they were being criticized at the APS meeting, I was frustrated that I could not rebuke public criticisms by my nuclear theory colleagues, since I did not have an appropriate alternative theory, even though I realized that their theoretical arguments are premature.”

but clearly the few active critics against lenr, are not respecting the scientific method .

Alain, I have a PhD in physics. Let me know when you finish high school.

As for “the critics are not respecting the scientific method”, that’s a total cheap shot with a lie on top. The skeptics are respecting the scientific method, which requires bold proof for bold claims. It’s the free energy community that keeps crying for exceptions from the simple principle that in science you either have to put up, or shut up.

:-)

AlainCo

I don’t talk of the free energy community, neither of UFOist.

I talk of competent physicist in material science who carfeully know that cannot say anything…

re-read what yeong E Kim write, re read it… until you understand what it mean. or at least my metaphor…

anyway even if in theory it cannot work, you have to change the theory..

that is why I say you don’t follow scientific method.

Give me your PhD so I prevent mis-use.

(a joke, all the community, and thomas kuhn explain why, is plagued with the same disease. you are standard).

where did you learn not to read ? getting your PhD, to avoid evidences and critics ? please read that and tell me what is scientific method ?

Maybe people can understand your problem with reading. or with scientific method.
By the way, not personal, it is what Thomas Kuhn explain.

“==Explicit rejection of the experimental method==

Several leading skeptics have stated that cold fusion proves the experimental method itself does not work. In other words, when dozens or hundreds of laboratories report they have replicated a phenomenon, they might all be wrong, and the only way to be sure a finding is correct is to show that it conforms to established theory. [Close, Huizenga ibid.] [6]

A variation of this idea was expressed by R. Ballinger (MIT) and B. Kevles (Yale). They say that Fleischmann and Pons were definitely wrong, but those who later replicated them may be right. Ballinger wrote:

“It would not matter to me if a thousand other investigations were to subsequently perform experiments that see excess heat. These results may all be correct, but it would be an insult to these investigators to connect them with Pons and Fleischmann. . . . Putting the ‘Cold Fusion’ issue on the same page with Wien, Rayleigh-Jeans, Davison Germer, Einstein, and Planck is analogous to comparing a Dick Tracy comic book story with the Bible.” [7]

Kevles [8] accused Fleischmann and Pons of misconduct (fraud) and “scientific misdeeds,”, and she said that the later replications of their work prove nothing to the contrary: [9]

“Eventually, [Fleischmann and Pons] particular claims were refuted as theoretically unfounded and without experimental support. This is the incident I referred to in my article and it has altogether nothing to do with research since in this field.” [10]
“

“anyway even if in theory it cannot work, you have to change the theory..”

You only change a theory AFTER you have experimental proof that it is wrong. So far, that proof is lacking. That is the scientific method. I am sorry if that is inconvenient for you, but we are not going to change it just because you can’t make your little idiocy work any other way.

I couldn’t care less about your misinterpretation of Kuhn. You have to take that up with someone who is interested in defending Kuhn. I am not even interested in that. Neither do I care what Ballinger, Kelves etc. write about the issue.

In physics you either put up (WITH A REPEATABLE EXPERIMENT) or you shut up. So far nobody has been able to put up. The smart thing then would be to shut up.

Now, I am not going to accuse you of being smart, though.

:-)

Em

There is no such a thing as bold proof.
There is only straight ‘proof’.

Given your terminology, it is doubtful that you have a PhD in physics.

Footnote: There is no reason to suggest that the device reviewed above breaks the laws of physics, for its operation to that extent may not be known.
To PROVE that it breaks the laws of physics one would have to limit ALL possible energy sources, including those unknown.

It is very possible that we have simply discovered a fountain of environmental energy not previously known, resulting in an explanation for how such a device as the one reviewed above could be possible and yet not break any laws of physics.

Such “unknown” sources of energy have been a subject of debate, one such form of energy is often called ether or aether.

In addition:

Scientific observation produced these “theoretical” laws of physics, it would therefore take no more than scientific observation to demonstrate that any law of physics is false or has a limited applicability.

That you scoff in the face of the same authority, scientific observation, that established these laws when they call them into question, questions your credentials with regard to science and/or your critical thinking ability.

-Leave convention behind and let nature lead you.

Brad Arnold

No, the quotes are exactly mirroring what you are doing: calling something you disbelieve “nonsense.” LENR is a proven phenomena, and the third party verification is strong evidence. Dismissing this for the sake of your preconception that LENR is “nonsense” is exactly what those other people in history did with the emerging marvels of science of their time. That’s a sure sign of suckerdom, for sure. You sir are entitled to your own opinion, but not your own facts (no matter how “fun” pulling facts out of your b#tt is to justify your irrational opinion).

At the risk of repeating: Check out this third-party verification of a LENR reactor that will soon hit the market: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
“Given the deliberately conservative choices made in performing the measurement, we can reasonabley state that the E-Cat HT is a non-conventional source of energy which lies between conventional chemical sources of energy and nuclear ones.” (i.e. about five orders of magnitude more energy dense than gasoline, and a COP of almost 6).

1) I can find some old guy in the late 19th or early 20th century who made a complete fool of himself (already back then, not even in hindsight).
2) Because that guy made a poorly thought out statement about something else, any nonsense that I read on the internet today that happens to have competent critics must be true.

Thanks, but I pass on that logic. And if I were you, I would ask that high school of yours for your money back. They clearly didn’t manage to teach you even the most fundamental aspects of logic.

Again, I am saying that the facts do not support your skepticism (i.e. more like denial). BTW, you claim to have a PhD in physics, so you ought to research the Widom-Larson theory that explains LENR (according to NASA PhDs). Frankly, the hardest headed people seem to be those with the most education – I’ve found that the most critical negative can’t-do people are “experts.”

Do you know the number of times I’ve read that “experts” say something couldn’t be done and rule it out as a possibility, then they are proven wrong?

FactsAreFun

Look, Brad, the truth is that the physics of this thing is way over you head. So you are looking for some reason why the skeptics have to be wrong. So you find some old guy who made a fool of himself and you basically accuse everybody who isn’t as clueless about this thing as you are to be just like that old guy.

Is that a human reaction? Totally. Is it a logical reaction? Nope.

That logical thing to do would be to go to the library and to grab a bunch of physics books. Now, that’s a very hard thing to do. I should know. I have had my head in the books for more than ten years. Physics is damn hard, Brad, even if you like it. Even if you have a little bit of gift for it. It’s even harder, if you don’t.

But you see, nobody can take that burden of your shoulder. Either you do the hard thing, or you don’t. If you don’t, you will not understand. And that is the only thing that’s happening here. You don’t understand, so you are an easy victim of a trivial scam.

Either that, or you are one of the scammers. Then, of course, you are a simple criminal. End of story.

Have a nice life.

PS: therer is no such thing as a Widom-Larson “theory”. A theory requires strict experimental validation. Since there is no experimental confirmation of cold fusion in hydrides, there can also be no theory of any kind of cold fusion in metal hydrides. At best, there can be a proposed mechanism. From what I have heard, this mechanism is not even popular among the scammers, because it is actually testable… and scams don’t like to be tested.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. If enough evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, it moves to the next step—known as a theory—in the scientific method and becomes accepted as a valid explanation of a phenomenon.

You are correct that, although I properly used the popular term, that it would be more properly characterized as the Widom-Larsen hypotheses.

BTW: Distorted thinking is recognized by its characteristics: narrow,
resistant to change, biased toward negativity, and often irrational.

I think you have distorted thinking, and furthermore it will be a great hindrance to your success. I will turn out to be correct – Rossi will successfully market his LENR product soon. When this happens you ought to seriously consider that I am right about your distorted thinking too – I bet it is a hindrance to your success.

FactsAreFun

Yawn. I couldn’t care less what you are thinking. And physics doesn’t care, for sure.

In science the one and only thing that counts is EVIDENCE. You got none and that settles it.

Brad Arnold

So, you are saying that something can be true, but it doesn’t matter because only evidence counts?? Nullifying the evidence that LENR is genuine, and that the E-Cat HT has been independently verified, won’t make it untrue. Wow, you sure are dense buddy. Classic distorted thinking – there is plenty of evidence of that in your comments.

Mirk Watkins

“So, you are saying that something can be true, but it doesn’t matter because only evidence counts?? Nullifying the evidence that LENR is genuine, and that the E-Cat HT has been independently verified, won’t make it untrue. Wow, you sure are dense buddy. Classic distorted thinking – there is plenty of evidence of that in your comments.”

The points you try to use against Guest are completely applicable to you, just in reverse. I don’t think you’re an honest observer of the situation or of yourself, because you keep spewing nonsene that backfires on you, usually doing more damage to you than Guest.

Unless you’re being swayed by imperical evidence, then only a fool or a failure of a scientist would assign themselves, as absolutely as you seem to have done, to an unverified invention. To suggest it is impossible is, equally, Guest’s failure to accept the first rule of the inquisitive mind: Man is fallible and the universe is so much more amazing and difficult to pin down than we can imagine.

Hope is not fact and a scientific breakthrough of this magnitude that is afraid to be tested by a peer-review board is not trust worthy until it has passed such examinations. Science has nothing to hide, but scams do. There are no legal reasons why he should restrict access of any part of his invention, his theory, or his materials to examination, nor are there any financial reasons or any other pressing motive to keep it out of the hands of those that could prove it works and, therefore, green light the testing, and eventual marketing, of his creation.

So, for the logical mind and the scientific mind, there can be no second hand / independently produced evidence that can be trusted. This is that lady claiming to have found Big Foot’s DNA all over again -_- Seriously….

P.S. I know this is a necro post, but that’s not going to stop me from berating the particpants of a discussion that no self-respecting intellectual would have allowed to come into existence in the first place.

AlainCo

LENR is proven by a hundred of experiments, including recent publication of Toyota replication of Mitsubishi LENR transmutation, published in peer-reviewed Japanese Journal of Applied Physics

Industrial products like e-cat as you should be open to anything out of the reactor. they have been as the testers said, and it was allowed to rewire, to touch, to weight, to measure all out of the reactor, input and output. that is blackbox science.
any one like pomp&eriksson who claim you cannot trust a blackbox test should go to engineering schools and give up his PhD to exchange it with an attorney at law diploma.

What happeni inside such innovations is trade secret and should be protected. This industry is worth many trillion $, and I already three case of industrial spying… one with stealing samples (because they open the box), one with computer hacking (perfectly cleaned like professional do), one with ground intrusion by professional.

Mirk Watkins

“BTW: Distorted thinking is recognized by its characteristics: narrow,
resistant to change, biased toward negativity, and often irrational.”

You may be for Rossi and LENR, but that hasn’t stopped you from living up to every symptom outlined in the above quote. I’ve read the flame war you and Guest have been taking full part in. You just haven’t resorted to base name calling, which is not the same as being a positive, reasonable debater. You’re inability to accept the peculiar lack of evidence, of patents, of offers to present it to a peer-review board, etc… as damning until proven otherwise is hindering you from successfully leading this argument somewhere worthwhile.

Good luck.

AlainCo

fascinating !

you don’t even catch the metaphor of the Mole and the aerodynamic… not even Yeong Kim physic explanation…

You cannot be a physicist…

1-You don’t respect scientific method. failure of theory mean experimental error for you. not even need to prove artifacts.
2- You don’t understand the difference between physics in free space and in crystal lattice. (my QM knowledge is enough for that)

you are exactly in the case explained in the wiki-rejected article. blatant violation of scientific method, and pathetic QM knowledge.

“Another strong criticism against LENR is that there is no peer-reviewed paper. In fact that is already factually false. There are about a thousand of peer-reviewed papers published in recognized journals.”

Sir, your handle “FactsAreFun” is ironic, because you are a very close-minded negative person.

“I have the intimate conviction that no experiment can convince the
deniers of LENR, like it is seen in conspiracy groups, or in corporate
group delusion. Roland Benabou after gathering story of denial (see patterns of denial) propose a nice model of collective delusion (see this paper) that predict that with increasing level of evidence the violence of the attacks will grow, until final collapse.”

FactsAreFun

“Not that I believe for one minute that you are being genuine in your statement that you require “evidence””

Your beliefs about me are completely irrelevant.

“There are about a thousand of peer-reviewed papers published in recognized journals.”

So start citing the ones that are of high quality and confirm net energy release. What’s the problem with that? Aren’t you the expert in this field? Why can’t you give us the citations instead of all this bitching about people requiring evidence?

The rest of your post is, again, completely irrelevant.

Nishi Hundan

You sound like a fucking loser crackpot nutjob

JEFF

Basic physics do not supoort his claims, while LERNR is real Rossi device by his own admision does not use the physics of LENR

saywhat

I realize i’m 5 months late to the party, but for someone with a phD in physics, you sound more like a jackass.

Disasterjunkie

like gasoline or carbon! …. next you’ll be telling us that global warming is a lie.

Brad Arnold

I believe that mankind’s GHG emissions are warming the planet. I also have come to the conclusion that until there is another form of energy that is cheaper, mankind will continue pouring more GHG into the air. LENR means hydrogen is about 5 orders of magnitude more energy dense as gasoline (logical, since plutonium in a dirty fission reactor is 6 orders of magnitude more energy dense). In other words, LENR will make clean energy “too cheap to meter” (as said by Forbes.com).

Mirk Watkins

That’s “…usually is.”

purplepartyguy

Yes we are talking about LENR which if it proves out totally changes the entire planet in ways we cant imagine. Or we can talk about a wind energy project that is being highly subsidized by the taxpayers and will change nothing globally and have only a minor impact for cape cod. Im all for renewable energy when its smart…over the life of cape wind ratepayers will subsidize the project in the many hundreds of millions of dollars, much of which goes into profits for the owners. Would this money be better spent elsewhere? Id rather see cape wind built on the national seashore on the outer cape…project cost would be about 40% less and still provide renewable energy.

Mirk Watkins

The standards you hold the wealthy to are not Earth standards. I highly recommend not trusting things to be ideal or fair. Shitty people love money and often don’t do anything to deserve it over others. Hard working parents are generally poor, yet they can’t be according to you. It almost defies logic! Or, not…

http://www.facebook.com/russ.michaels.5 Russ Michaels

dude, you cannot just pop down the shop and get a patent, it can sometimes take years to get one, if this is true then that us obviously whst he is waiting on so everyone doesn’t copy him.

http://fedgeno.com/ Fedge

Actually, yes you can. If you can prove your science and you have a working prototype, you get a patent. It’s pretty simple. And if it takes time, the patent is pending during that time and no one can plagiarize your work. Next?

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=504724931 Michael Blake

no you can not it takes up to 2-10 years to get a patient on anything. google it. they have over 3000 patents+ to go thru. the prosesses is slow.

http://fedgeno.com/ Fedge

And you didn’t read the second last sentence in my post before replying. Thanks for the useless email.

http://www.facebook.com/david.snell.56 David Snell

not only that, it’s only one guy doing it

http://www.facebook.com/jason.iles1 Jason Iles

putting an initial patent in is easy but when it comes to final publication where it gets published (normally 12months pending period for editing) you will have to defend against prior arts claims which could leave you too destitute to manufacture your product.

donh

False. The patent office is changing to first-to-file. It’s not going to be first-to-invent any longer.

King Of Bob

No, it isn’t. All you’re doing by continuing to make these comments is displaying your ignorance of the patent process.

Solararis

As of March of this year the patent office has become a first to file system. You are the ignorant one here, KOB.

http://twitter.com/mommatheregoes That Man

If it’s not perfect, then you run the risk of letting someone else make a minor tweak and getting ALL of the rights to patent. I think you have lost sight of the business side of things. Business always comes first, life-changing science or not.

Bryan Du Vall

Nobody but the Chinese. Happens all the time. Rules are never followed over there. First place to look if you want something that is invented here but not available because of patent red tape.

wgalison

“proving your science” means that no patent can be given to a device that appears to violate the current paradigm.

However, there are many many inventions that work in ways that are not well understood, including most pharmaceuticals. They work, but nobody can fully explain the mechanism. Big Pharma has clout.

If you think that the interests who are threatened by new energy technologies do not have the clout to suppress these patents, you are naive.

“”proving your science” means that no patent can be given to a device that appears to violate the current paradigm.”

Well, no. If it works reliably but doesn’t fit within the current paradign, then a paradigm shift would have to occur.

Dr Tim Norris

For obtaining granted patent rights, requirements of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability have to be satisfied. However, the patent application must include an enabling disclosure of embodiments of the invention. The problem for Mr Rossi is that the “secret ingredient” to start the reaction has to be disclosed in the patent application, otherwise a person of ordinary skill in the art would not be able to work the invention based upon information included in the patent application. Mr Rossi is considering keeping the “secret ingredient” as a proprietory secret (perhaps a prudent commercial decision in the circumstances). I have an open mind regarding the cold-fusion technology, and will be more convinced when products start being mass-produced and proven to provide a net energy yield over a long period of operation.

James

He did try to patent aspects other that the “secret sauce” and his application was rejected based on the concept of cold fusion being a violation of allegedly “known laws of physics.”

Liberal_Lover

Elon Musk doesn’t like to use patents for several of his projects. he says it’s like handing over the blue prints to your idea. Sometimes you need it, sometimes its best not to do it if your technology is already surpassing that of anyone else.

Neutrino .

Not necessarily. If the technology is valuable enough then it may be more wise to keep it secret until your revenue streams are secure, rather than publish your data and hope the Chinese/Russians/Arabs/<insert favourite whipping boy here> won’t rip it off and undercut you in the market.

The tech behind the engines in the new Skylon is also being kept secret rather than patented, probably for similar reasons.

I’m not suggesting that this cold fusion is genuine, there have been plenty of false claims in this area before, I’m just saying there can be justifiable grounds for trusting in secrecy rather than IP law.

http://www.facebook.com/ian.walker.7140 Ian Walker

The Patent has been applied for this indipendent testing is one of the hurdles it has to jump.

Kalle Last

Too bad it wasn’t independent testing

Freethinker Lenr

Independent enough.

* All time going in is paid by the universities or the fund from capital that normally fund these scientists.
* Travel expenses was not paid by Rossi.
* Rossi did not take part in the tests nor in the analysis.
* Rossi did not have any say in what was written in the report.

Note that senior scientists from two well known and credible universities took part.

In all, independent enough. If you doubt, you may ponder if the discovery of the Higgs boson was any more independent. Me for my part trust the Higgs discovery. As I trust this report.

Ecat works. LENR is real. Study up and live with it.

Kalle Last

Rossi set up the test, not testers.
The testers were allowed in the room after the test had already been started
The leader of the paper has been working with Rossi since beginning
Rossi didn’t allow for as simple tests as measuring gamma radiation or measuring power input with other tools than simply fooled clamps. Both of what would have cleared a lot of criticism against the paper.

RGlenCheek

Rossi did NOT set u p the March test. You are either lying or did not read the whole report.
Your contribution to this discussion is nothing better than that of an astroturfing troll.

Kalle Last

I read both papers and the “testers” interview as well. When they arrived the setup was already running as set up by Rossi.

RGlenCheek

Yes, in December, but not the test in March. The testers were allowed to see everything that went into the E-cat and they got a control e-cat set up without the nickel/hydrogen charge.
They wouldn’t have been able to verify the construction of the control device and the e-cat if they were all already assembled.

JEFF

By test documentation they did not see the build or disassembly of the device. That was performed in another room without observers

RGlenCheek

They said that for the December test, but where do they say that for the MARCH test? What page is this reference on?

RGlenCheek

BOTH papers? What and where is the SECOND paper?

JEFF

rossi did set up the test as provided by his documentation.

RGlenCheek

Dude, the testers complained that the December test was run on a machine that was already set up. In the March test they do not make such a complaint and when the dummy was set up they removed the inner core and replaced it with a core that had no charge. Seems to be plainly implied that the March test set up had the testers involved.
Where in the test documentation do you find it saying that the March test was already set up, and that Rossi did it?
Perhaps my psychic powers are not as good as yours? lol

Dark Cyberian Knight

Patent offices often rejects cold fusion. I don’t trust Rossi though. I’m waiting for peer review analysis on the paper if any can be done.

matt_helm

Problem with a patent is it’s public, and ANYONE can use it if they don’t commercialize it. That means if it’s something anyone can make on their own, he’ll never sell a single device.

http://www.facebook.com/people/John-Little/100002359892998 John Little

You can’t patent any over unity device. The patent would get rejected as not possible.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000214934713 Keith Dick

You misunderstand. They aren’t claiming over unity. They are claiming a fusion reaction at a low energy in a specially-prepared medium. Saying they are claiming over unity would be like saying that a typical nuclear power plant is an over unity device.

King Of Bob

You should look up what “over unity” means. This device proports to output more energy than is input. Thus, it is the definition of an “over unity device.”

And your last sentence seems to suggest you don’t understand how current nuclear reactors work. Nuclear power plants do not produce more energy than is put into them. In fact, we have to convert their energy to another form before we can even use it.

The nuclear material is placed into some kind of coolant, which heats up and flows through turbines. Essentially it’s not much different than how a hydro-electric dam works.

Argent

No, *you* should look up what “over unity” means. Among the perpetual-motion/free-energy crowd, at least, it means you get more energy out than could have been contained in the device (First Law violation: creation of energy).
Ordinary energy production (such as: combustion, hydroelectric, fission, wind, solarvoltaic, geothermal, etc.) taps energy that already exists somewhere: chemical potential energy, gravitational potential energy, nuclear potential energy, solar-driven kinetic energy, solar radiant energy, or radioactivity-induced heat energy, respectively. None of these processes *creates* energy.

Your own sentence seems to suggest that *you* don’t understand how current nuclear reactors work. They DO produce more energy than is put in, in the form of (e.g.) electricity to run the coolant pumps, because the fissioning nuclei release some of their vast store of potential energy. We tap some of this energy for production of electricity, etc.

You say, “In fact, we have to convert their energy to another form before we can even use it.”
This is true for almost all energy systems, but it does not change the fact that tapping an energy source can be done with less energy than the source contains. Otherwise, power plants would be impossible — or at least impractical. The fact that you are using electricity at this very moment, and continue to do so, shows that at least some method of energy production in your area is considered practical.

King Of Bob

No, it is not about the devices ability to “contain” more energy than is put into it. That doesn’t even make sense. Over unity refers to outputinput.

Further, I never said anything about the devices you mention generating energy in the way you’re suggesting. When I used the word energy, I was clearly referring to electrical energy.

And no, nuclear reactors absolutely do not generate more electricity than the energy input into the system. The radioactive material counts as “input.” Since a nuclear reactor cannot run without the radioactive material. You first have to input energy to begin the fission process, and energy is lost through the conversion of energy.

Your conclusion is false and based on faulty reasoning. I never said anything about the impossibility to electricity production. What I said is that NO POWER PLANT is capable of producing more electrical energy than the energy put into it initially.

Argent

Please read more carefully.
You said, “No, it is not about the device’s ability to “contain” more energy than is put into it. That doesn’t even make sense.”
—Yes, it does. Consider a simple friction match: the activation energy (heat from friction as the match is rubbed on something) is far less than the energy yielded by the chemical reaction that is started. (Otherwise, the match would be useless.)Once a system is “pre-loaded” with stored energy, such as chemical potential energy, it can be tapped to good effect. In *this* sense a match is an over-unity device, but it does not *create* energy (which I take to be the meaning of “over unity” in the perpetual-motion-machine sense).

And: “Further, I never said anything about the devices you mention generating energy in the way you’re suggesting. When I used the word energy, I was clearly referring to electrical energy.”
—All of the methods I mentioned are used for the generation of electrical energy (and other kinds too). They convert stored (potential) energy to other forms, including electrical.

And: “And no, nuclear reactors absolutely do not generate more electricity than the energy input into the system. The radioactive material counts as ‘input.'”
—Of course! But it depends on what is counted as input. I was talking about the input of energy needed to operate the reactor’s control and output systems, which is much less than the energy that the core yields via fission. Note that the core activity must be held to a moderate level, lest its energy become so great that it destroys the system. (Think Windscale, Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima….)

And: “You first have to input energy to begin the fission process, and energy is lost through the conversion of energy.”
—There are always conversion losses (Second Law), of course, but they do not mean that a stored supply of energy cannot be tapped efficiently.
Note that we take advantage of natural processes that formed the fuels for us: geologic conversion of organic material into carbon or hydrocarbons, or the supernova that made our uranium. We don’t count those “production costs” in our efficiency computations, because they did not require our own efforts to generate. Only by neglecting the “natural costs” can we say that a system operates over unity.

And: “What I said is that NO POWER PLANT is capable of producing more electrical energy than the energy put into it initially.”
—Again, it’s a matter of definition. If you count the fuel’s inherent potential energy as input, then you indeed get out less (in terms of usable energy) than you put in. This is widely known.
If you refer only to the activation and operation energies, which is the usual way of assessing the efficiency of a power plant, then you get much more energy out than you put in. Because of this, power plants are profitable enough to be worth building.

bobjinx

I’m not sure you understand over-unity or the supposed internal workings of the ecat at all. In the context of the E-CAT device, it is purported that the Ni/H/Catalyst compound when provided with enough activation energy (i.e heat) undergoes low energy nuclear reactions (LENR). As a result the mass lost through nuclear fusion is released as heat.

Utilising your own logic, the Ni/H/catalyst compound is the fuel being input into the system. Only a small amount of matter has to be lost during fusion in order to release disproportionate amounts of energy. (using e =mc^2, 1 joule requires only 1/(3*10^8)^2 kg or roughly 1.11*10^-17 kg of mass change,

Therefore the system, like the nuclear power plant, is less then unity since it converts the mass of the fuel into thermal energy via nuclear reactions. The mark two reactor tested in the second experiment is designed to fit into a heat exchanger in order to create steam, drive a mechanical device and generate electricity

I might also offer that your level of understanding for the whats claimed to be happening inside and outside the e-cat is not yet well developed.

http://www.facebook.com/cees.timmerman Cees Timmerman

Only true if you count matter as energy. (E2=p2c2+m2c4)

http://www.facebook.com/cees.timmerman Cees Timmerman

Only true if you count matter as energy. (E2=p2c2+m2c4)

donh

You must live on the Big Rock Candy Mountain with the lemonaide streams and the popsicle trees. They don’t patent because they saw what happened to Pons and Fleischmann.

There are vested interests with deep pockets in hot fusion and conventional energy and banking that don’t want to see the world turned upside down. Secrecy is the only option that will get this good to market before it can be despoiled or purloined by the big players using our corrupt patent system and their armies of bought scientists, politicians and lawyers (and thugs).

past behavior is not proof of future behavior, hence the ‘black swan’ phenomena.
no one understands enough about LENR to say that this is a scam, looking in from outside the lab.
But Rossi would have to be a damn poor grafter, were he one. he has brought in too many people and over-extended his investment.
And there is no place he could go with his purloined billions.
No grafter would do these things and to suggest such at this stage of things is simply absurd.
This is real, folks and if you want to close you eyes and pretend its not real or is a scam, you and your fellow pathoskeptics are the only ones losing out.

King Of Bob

I don’t think you know how the patent process works. You don’t just apply for one and they give it to you. Cold fusion devices and perpetual motion machines are high on the list of things the patent office tends to dismiss out of hand. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_fusion#Patents
Specifically: The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) now rejects patents claiming cold fusion. Esther Kepplinger, the deputy commissioner of patents in 2004, said that this was done using the same argument as with perpetual motion machines: that they do not work.

BBrian

Currently patents are taking 2-3 yrs from filing date to be granted – and can take longer if the inventor/entity wants broad coverage. With something like this – a patent application can be applied for the ‘secret sauce’. For the first 18 months after filing the patent is kept secret until the 18 mnth publication date – this is merely a time at which the filed application is made known to the public (note: publication is not the same as granted). Unless the inventor abandons the application the application will remain ‘patent pending’ until the grant date then it becomes an actual patent. During this time the inventor has rights to sell the invention, license it, etc. If they do get a patent and it can be easily replicated it doesn’t matter – anyone replicating can be issued with a cease and desist letter, and if they continue to sell replications then they can be fined for every single replication sold. Patents provide protection.
Given the nature of the device then the inventor will likely be asked to provide a working prototype – it will undergo very, very close scrutiny.
After 20 years from the filing date the patent expires and goes into the public domain.

RGlenCheek

Patents give protection?
Really?
Wow, someone should have explained this to Farnsworth whom RCA ripped off for more than three decades stealing his patents.

King Of Bob

Or, as I said, his application would be thrown out right away. Since the patent office has officially classified over unity devices as “impossible.” They wouldn’t even likely consider his application because they believe there is no possibility that this technology can exist.

MF

You are too naive. If it works, of course there will be an enormous amount of interests against it. You live in a fairy tale where governments and institutions work perfectly and are clean and transparent, and they are here to help and serve you sha la la la!. Welcome to the real world “dude”.

kurtis99

No, the interest for it would be greater than the ones against it. Noone would kill the goose that lays the golden eggs.

MF

You are too naive. If it works, of course there will be an enormous amount of interests against it. You live in a fairy tale where governments and institutions work perfectly and are clean and transparent, and they are here to help and serve you sha la la la!. Welcome to the real world “dude”.

FactsAreFun

I would love to buy a Bedini motor. The problem is… they never ship them, not even if you pay in advance. It’s a real mystery…

;-)

AlainCo

Brillouin is patented, Defkalion said so too…
Nothing says that Rossi did not patent the real thing… but like some who don’t trust patents, he don’t trust patent office.

he have reason because he have been put in jail illegally by his corrupted government, and innocented far after.

He clearly state that he don’t want to make business in italy, just research… because of the governments and business practices there.

Wang King

If he is publishing the results then anybody can use it. That’s far better.

James

He is trying to patent it. The patent was rejected by patent examiners who gave, as their reason, that the invention supposedly violates known “laws” of physics.

http://fedgeno.com/ Fedge

When you patent something you present a working prototype for examination in cases like that and you get a patent.

Karlo

There is a need for secrecy surrounding a great invention. Inventors do not want their ideas stolen and all of their work lost to crminals who would take full credit by using others ideas for their own personal profit. Also, there is good reason to fear the established corporate greed which seems to have no bounds. The current energy based corporations and who they support do not want something like this to work, in most cases.
At this point, I still do not believe that Rossi has anything that is useful but, I am watching him and others. We need to work hard to find better solutions to our energy needs and we also need a smaller world population.

AtotehZ

I would patent it and take 0.1% of all profits. Maybe 0.01%.. So many rich people have way too much money. If you earn a lot of money you are usually very good and what you do and enjoy it. Having millions on the bank account, aside from what you actually use, doesn’t do you or anyone else any good.

MrCchap1 .

i agree with you,my comment precisely

Tom Sexton

Not if the “establishment” of politicians lobbyists & fuel companies said don’t let them….

Tom Sexton

Not if the “establishment” of politicians lobbyists & fuel companies said don’t let them….

Juan Alvarado

What if the secret sauce is Unicorn horn, suddenly its open season on unicorns and the price skyrockets to limit its usefulness. By keeping it secret, he stockpiles the ingredient, tells the world and it becomes rare, he sells his stockpile for half, still getting rich while people getti g it that need it. Smart move to keep the cards close to chest, in my opinion

http://fedgeno.com/ Fedge

Yeah. We wouldn’t want unicorns to go extinct.

King Of Bob

It’s funny how you admit you’re no expert, and then suggest this story is spurious. Even though, by your own admission, you don’t know what you’re talking about. You even go so far as to suggest you’re “being censored” which suggests you’re a little(at least) paranoid.

Brad Arnold

Yeah, like NASA officials, respected scientists, and many commercial enterprises are fooled, while you know better. Frankly, you have to be pretty removed (if you know what I mean) to think it is a scam. Good luck with that chojin999. BTW, here are some of people perhaps you can identify with:

“I would sooner believe that two Yankee professors lied, than that
stones fell from the sky” – Thomas Jefferson, 1807 on hearing an
eyewitness report of falling meteorites.

“All a trick.” “A Mere Mountebank.” “Absolute swindler.” “Doesn’t know
what he’s about.” “What’s the good of it?” “What useful purpose will it
serve?” – Members of Britain’s Royal Society, 1926, after a
demonstration of television.

“The energy produced by the atom is a very poor kind of thing. Anyone
who expects a source of power from the transformation of these atoms is
talking moonshine” – Ernst Rutherford, 1933

Erik Gonzalez

everthing starts with an idea.. this is an idea that could come true.. you pple just think about “reality” when technology is advancing. If nasa could have this teck they can get more info about other planets. I feel sorry for you pple thats say its false.

AlainCo

nice to see you know of others actors…

the domain start to be busy… time to forget the usual flatearthers who tortured wegenr, semmelweis,… despite the evidences.

thing are getting completed piece by piece.
Defkalion announces they will make a demo at NIWeek 2013, and present a paper at ICCF18 this summer. They say they have partnership with many kind of industrials, and have to reject many candidates.

Rossi finally is endorsed by that paper, that is impossible to fraud… COP of 5 imply huge errors (50% temperature error, 400% emissivity, …) and all measures were taken the conservative way (someone here told stupid fact abou emissivity, which is not only conservative but checked with black dots)

LENR-cities and Kressen signed an agreement, LENR-Invest joint the ecosystem, LENR-cars is not far…

Time to make business…

–
AlainCo the techwatcher of lenr-forum.com

Matthew Fuller

If Rossi’s claims are not true then it is Rossi who may be the sociopath. He has a criminal record. For the beleivers, please contact me. If Rossi has a product that can be purchased at the store by the end of next year, I will pay you 1k. If not, you pay me 2k. Seems like a steal to a true believer. externalmonologue at gmail dot com

RGlenCheek

Rossi was acquited. You are engaging in slander, though I doubt you are concerned as you try to debunk something your pathological skepticism simply cannot accept.

BGood2

I’d be willing to bet, for example, $10,000 that this is NOT real. Is it because I am “in the know”? No, it’s because these claims so far have ALWAYS been false. If I’m right, I’d win $10,000. If I’m wrong, I would not mind losing $10K because it would mean the world was going to change suddenly, and for the better. To me, that would be win-win.

King Of Bob

That is not valid logical reasoning. We had never gone to space before the space program, so I guess until that point, it was impossible, right?

Or how about basic flight? Every single attempt before the Write brothers famous flight failed, so it must have been impossible right? No. Science does not work that way.

RGlenCheek

Oh, yeah, and I will bet you my magical internet millions that it is real.
shut up

Eric Bertha

@RGlenCheek:disqus Actually that would be Libel since we’re writing all this.

RGlenCheek

OK, true, but I am quite sure that BGood2 is mouthing the words as he reads and writes, so that would be slander, too.
lol

http://twitter.com/Crylar44 Crylar

His progress should only concern he’s peers. When it has been peer reviewed there will be no point to suspicions of schemes.

But till then, people should remain skeptic. No one should trust such a breakthrough claim on word only. Nothing is above criticism and if someone immediately disregard the though that this might not be all true, that person seems to find Rossi infallible, which is kind of alarming.

For now I hope this is true, but remains skeptic. Naturally.
Also, its cool that it looks like a power cell from a video game :P

AlainCo

Some suspicion is reasonable, but at that state it seems quite irrational.

If you follow what happend in the domain you know that ther is a huge pile of scientific results that let no doubt on LENR, that the recent Hi+H breakthrough is less validated but that there are now 3 report of Third party test done when the tester was quite free to organize his tests, and the COP are above 2, thus impossible to be error…

you can comfortably be skeptical waiting for the new york times to confirm the fact, or you can try to take advantage of the situation like an innovator may.

anyway you have no practical reason, even the opposite, to take the risk to accept facts. nobody will say you are delusional and not using your brain efficiently, because you follow 99.99% of uninformed people, and majority is never accused of being wrong.

Only businessmen have incentive to use their brain and need to find the truth before it is the consensus.
they have chosen their position. (national instruments, SAIPEM, ST Micro, Prometeon, Defkalion, Uni missouri SKINR …)

All other just have to avoid to support anything which is not the consensus. Optimal strategy for installed actors.

RGlenCheek

This report is enough to drop further misgivings, IMO.
Do what you want, but don’t tell me what I can accept as credible.

http://www.miketheinfidel.com/ MikeTheInfidel

Among the things that weren’t allowed to happen in the “verification”: unplugging the machine from external power, having the machine turned off at the beginning of the trial, and monitoring for gamma radiation.

Scaaaaaam.

RGlenCheek

There is no reason to expect significant gamma from this type of process.
This isn’t your fathers fusion.
Duuummmmbbbbb.

greybirdtoo

Maybe it shouldn’t produce gamma, but then why forbid measuring for gamma? I would like it to be a real process, whether it’s actually cold fusion or not. I’m just going to was until more evidence becomes public before making a judgement, I don’t see enough to make a decision either way.

AlainCo

if heat is above chemical possibility, it may be nuclear or alien technology… not important it works.

about gamme, ther have been many experiments with gamma measured. gamma are produced, but at low level, with some small peak when reaction is not working well… like smoke with a gas stove…

rossi justify forbiding gamma measurement by the fact that gamma spectrography reveal the nature of his catalyst…
I don’t know, but that is not a problem for the test.

it works, it is not chemical… it is a revolution..
pixie dust, nuclear or alien, it works.

RGlenCheek

Could it be, instead of pixie dust, maybe nymph dust. That would be cool, lol.

Jim Rall

The equations show heat… sorry but this doesn’t get it… show us the equations without heat that support this conclusion… I doubt you can.

Marcus2012

Or, there’s n proof of anything he says, and it’s never been done before, so it’s probably a fucking scam.

JD Rahman

If this is for real, Rossi needs to release his findings before someone takes him out. Cold Fusion becoming a reality will shift the political landscape of most of the planet. And there are many who will try to stop this from happening.

Imagine KSA, UAE, Qatar and Kuwait losing their western allies when black gold turns into black goo. It will be complete chaos.

http://classicalvalues.com/ TallDave

Nah, it would take decades to retrofit away from petroleum, and those countries passed peak production long ago anyway. Oil would probably fall back to $20/bbl over time, but KSA has a cost around $5/bbl — the main victims will be more expensive producers in places like the U.S., Canada, and Venezuela.

http://twitter.com/dave_newton Dave Newton

I don’t see how it’d take “decades” to throw a new power source with this much potential into the mix. If it’s this good, *all* resources would be brought to bear, because it’d be a 100% game changer.

SLewAK

We’d have Hydrogen cars in full production already…my father works for a company and they drive these cars and trucks. They are perfectly safe as are the fueling stations.

Until the powers that be can figure out how to charge mass amounts of money for breaking down water forget it.

drkennethnoisewater

I would rather have solid-oxide fuel cells working with synthetic hydrocarbons or ammonia than have to deal with an H2 infrastructure. We already have hydrocarbon pipelines, distribution, etc., and if fed to a fuel cell no soot, smog or other combustion byproducts. Plus, it would enable a glide path to synthetic hydrocarbons from atmospheric CO2, and with 60+% efficiency would likely get 70+MPG from a SOFC mid-size sedan or CUV.

Jonny Unite-Us

Please, for the love of God, tell the world how your cars work or shut the f— up. This electrolysis gag has gone on long enough. Unless you’re talking about fuel stations where you change out hydrogen tanks, you’re a loon.

I’ve built an electrolysis cell. They are cool. You can make a sweet blow torch. You can make explosives with browne’s gas. But what you CAN’T do is power the electrolysis device with the same engine that is being fueled by the electrolysis. It’s stupid that people still think they can violate the laws of thermodynamics…

thwap

“Please, for the love of God, tell the world how your cars work or shut the f— up.”

I understand your sentiment, though that doesn’t mean I agree with it – maybe you’re just impatient? Do you really think we live in a world in which, just cos something is viable, that will automatically translate into it being proliferated right throughout the world? That, just because you can’t reproduce a result (with all the different variables that can make or break said results), or can’t get your hands onto the technology, that means it automatically can’t be viable at its original source?

Case in point: Tesla’s wireless power transmission system – viable, demonstrable (by him, if nothing else – it’s pretty simple science now proven after Tesla’s time, the long wave stuff – scorned by his peers at the time since they merely didn’t understand it, but now fully understood and accepted physics – funny that, it’s like Bach being hated by his simpler peers or even Beethoven being ahead of his time) – yet because of low commercial viability, it didn’t proliferate. That was how simple the situation was.

Maybe just start accepting the fact, that we humans are sometimes the biggest roadblock to science’s progress of all! (Cos, WHY develop science when you can have MONEY or POWER instead? Most science that has exploded and changed the world dramatically in the last 100 years, has only been FOR money, FOR war, FOR power – (which are all basically the same thing in this context) – this is just basic observation of ourselves!!!…)

http://classicalvalues.com/ TallDave

Some applications have longer build-out times than others, irrespective of desirability. That’s why China is still putting finishing touches on Three Gorges here in 2013 (it became operational last year) — which was started in 1932 and actually continued by the Japanese during their occupation — even though hydro’s always been a no-brainer.

http://twitter.com/dave_newton Dave Newton

3G isn’t “a new power source”, it’s an implementation of an existing power source, and quite a bit different than building-sized reactors. Micro- and mini-hydro gennies can be up and running in weeks to months (well, real micro can be up in days). Even if manufacturing issues took a decade, throwing up a new distributed grid is years, not decades, at the most, and there’s no comparison to 3G. The idea that something with 3x orders of magnitude more density than gas wouldn’t be pushed alonger faster than basically anything *ever* is a bit unimaginative.

http://classicalvalues.com/ TallDave

That was exactly my point — the Three Gorges project was an existing technology with well-established benefits and it still took forever to get done, even though hydro is much cheaper than anything else. (And don’t even get me started on the lack of new hydro in the U.S. over the past half-century.)

Like I keep telling the solar guys, you’re not thinking about the practicalities here. There is an enormous, multi-trillion-dollar infrastructure in place for both electric and fuel distribution. There is a vast regulatory apparatus sitting on top of that. Sure, people can get their own jennies up, and many will, but that’s a very niche thing.

http://twitter.com/dave_newton Dave Newton

I seriously doubt that. You don’t need infrastructure for a standalone generator, and little *additional* infrastructure for micro-grids. 3G took forever because of the nature of the project, not the underlying technology.

http://classicalvalues.com/ TallDave

Of course you don’t need to rebuild the entire infrastructure. The problem is that it already exists and you don’t supplant that sort of thing quickly, especially when thousands of state-managed utilities and their armies of lobbyists and regulators are standing athwart your path. And very few people are going to be comfortable running their own generators or micro-grids with a brand-new technology, even if the capital cost was zero and all the entrenched players happily ignored their self-interest.

The Three Gorges project was finished in a couple decades once the decision was actually made to build the thing. The delay was not technical, but political.

drkennethnoisewater

***IF*** something like this pans out, and if it enables cost-effective synthesis of hydrocarbon fuels and plastics from atmospheric CO2, then bye bye conflict oil!

I think LFTR has a better chance, as its efficacy was proven ~50 years ago, and could be done TODAY.

kdk

He’s supposedly shared his secrets with a select few who are to reveal how it works to the public, if he dies.

Harry_Wild

Watch the George C. Scott movie on this subject!

Harry_Wild

The powers to be have this eventuality all figured out! George C. Scott made a picture on something close to this topic. What they did was just use their power to discredit the individual, political connections to dismiss it as fraud and the general media to say that it was not true – – – – even if it was actually true!
Now a days; the creator would be doom even if it was real! Thank to the professors from New Mexico or somewhere who said they just invented “Cold Fission”.

It’s getting harder to believe these tests could all be faked. OTOH, Rossi’s claims are pretty hard to believe too :)

Keep an eye out for the public test that Defkalion is supposed to be doing in July with National Instruments (who will be putting considerable credibility on the line). Assuming it actually happens, that should make some waves.

http://twitter.com/kmhg Reboot

I’ve been following Rossi’s artifact for the last two years. It’s a way too long story for being a scam. If this turns out to be real… well I just can’t imagine a world with a nearly free and environment friendly energy source. It would be fucking amazing.

http://www.facebook.com/larry.davidson.16547 Larry Davidson

Free??? no one said free

I hope no one actually believes this energy will be free — look the name e-cat or energy catalyst is a very good description of what this ‘thing’ does. It multiplies energy input by about 5~6. i read the paper the article is based on. You will never have this thing in your car it is WAY too big. This is meant for factories, for comercial buildings. — but most of all it needs an energy input — yes it makes energy — but it needs an outside energy source to run.

Will this change the world as we know it — YES will it replace gasoline — NO will it change everything about energy – YES but not the way people imagine.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=503567606 Clayton Bromley

One break through leads to another, do the math it’s easy. Your analysis, although frank an earnest, lacks extrapolation of possibilities that as always are limited only by funds and support.

so what about the first computers huge, and now?.
This thing will developed and evolve if it is legit.

http://www.facebook.com/coty.a.rothery Coty Alexander Rothery

It would make electric cars more viable since the energy would be cheaper and cleaner to produce…

http://www.facebook.com/robert.ivey.75 Robert Ivey

Actually energy for Electric cars is plenty cheap and plenty clean now.
They aren’t viable due to the battery being useless for long distance travel and way more eco unfriendly then gas in the long term.

http://www.facebook.com/nathan.bundick Nathan Bundick

The devise is about 16 inches long and 6 inches in diameter.
this would need to be connected to a turbine or generator to get power from the heat… I imagine this would easily fit into a vehicle.
It uses Very little nickel, if every one swaped to this tech now,
it would only use 1% of the current anual supply of nickel.
also nickel is a Very common element on earth.

Topastro Maledetto

your technical analysis is very compelling, especially considering that it comes from someone capable to put in almost one grammar error per line ..

http://www.facebook.com/ian.walker.7140 Ian Walker

The Nickel used is minute most people never do understand the formulae e=mc^2
At this energy density you can probably supply the worlds energy needs with the nickle in say American’s pcket change.

http://www.facebook.com/kim.jongun.7564 Kim Jong-un

There’s plenty of nickel in the asteroid belt…

http://www.facebook.com/Jmartin8472 Jonathan Martin

Correct my favorite dictator!

http://jdg123.myopenid.com/ Josh G.

If it’s real, why hasn’t he filed a patent (or has he?) If you file a
patent, you have to disclose how it works, but in return you get
exclusive rights to the invention for ~20 years.

http://fedgeno.com/ Fedge

That’s what I just commented above before reading through all of the comments. It just doesn’t make sense to keep this a secret if it’s actually real. He could be rolling in dough already.

http://fedgeno.com/ Fedge

Or giving it away for free, whatever tickles his fancy.

Sipho Mfungi

the guy does have a very bad history. he sounds like a con artist, but then again, one never knows. i’m hoping it’s true.

http://www.facebook.com/nathan.bundick Nathan Bundick

He was aquited of all charges.

Freethinker Lenr

Here we go again…

Study up and You’ll find that such accusations have a hard time to stick. He has a history. Yes. But he was acquitted.

It has zero correlation with the pre-print paper saying that ECAT does produce, conservatively speaking, a mother-load of excess heat.

Nor does it have an impact – non what so ever – on the fact that LENR is proven and is real.

Jamie MacDonald

China doesn’t care about that.

http://jdg123.myopenid.com/ Josh G.

Indeed not, but they can’t export infringing devices to the US or EU. If they use them domestically, so what?

Freethinker Lenr

Well, maybe 1.344 billion reasons…

Jamie MacDonald

This is a global device. If China get it all over Asia, that’s a crapload of market lost. This could theoretically replace every major power supply on the globe, including the factory towns of China itself.

flyinggerbil

Quite simply, you get one year of confidentiality before you must release all information necessary to allow anyone else to use/practice your invention. Now, normally the thinking is that you’ll have patent protection so this disclosure doesn’t matter. However, if this really is the breakthrough he’s holding it out to be, there would be people all over (looking at you, China) that would rip off the design and take it to market. He, thereby, loses his ability to control his invention and profit off it (if that’s a consideration).

Axil Axil

Maybe he does not know how it works. He needs time to work it out.

flyinggerbil

Also a possibility. A case of, “I just dumped some stuff into a test tube and poof.”

RGlenCheek

There is not confidentiality from the Big Wall Street Banksters.
They get what they want when they want, by hook or crook.

matt_helm

Problem with a patent is it’s public, and ANYONE can use it if they
don’t commercialize it. That means if it’s something anyone can make on
their own, he’ll never sell a single device.

http://www.facebook.com/WhoAreYouWhatAreYouDoingHere Chris Shakal

Fingers crossed

http://www.facebook.com/people/William-Robson/505831046 William Robson

I will await the peer review before trashing or hailing this.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=503567606 Clayton Bromley

There is nothing wrong with a little honest hope.

http://classicalvalues.com/ TallDave

You might be waiting a long time :)

Most industry processes are never peer-reviewed. If they work, they’re commercialized. I have clients with 50-year-old processes that are still secret.

As far back as Adam Smith’s work it was noted most empirical science happens in industry, unheralded and unpublished, but to the eventual benefit of all.

thwap

Wow that is so enlightening. Thank you for sharing that!

So we don’t NEED those scientists to just go ahead and make new technology work – if it works – use it! If you observe something – who CARES whether it’s peer-reviewed so-called ‘real science’ or not…the biggest proof that something is real is if it is implemented in business. (though I suppose, just cos something doesn’t make it to business, doesn’t mean the opposite!)

And yet though – why do they hold such a strong sway in things like patent approvals??? Rossi’s patents have all been knocked back because they are ‘not supported by understood models of established scientific thinking’ – so see how, they actually DO have (quite) a (unique) grip on even the world of business??? Kinda like climate change, actually??

Funny how the scientific lobby movement is so ‘clash of the titans’ against big oil with their climate change politicism, yet will vehemently distance themselves from a new field within their own ranks (that desperately needs help to be developed, understood and gotten to the bottom of), that will actually ACHIEVE what they keep crowing about in reducing the world’s carbon footprint blaa blaa blaa, in a better way than I’ve seen anything other before it!

Makes you almost think they don’t really want to solve climate change but just maintain (this) situation in which they can wield power and influence for their own benefit and wealth.

Doesn’t it.

Gerard Cruz-Molina

Per Dr. Joseph Fine:

“Please say 10^7 and 10^5 and not 107 and 105. Anyway, that is only for 116 hours, the energy density for six months is much more impressive. By the way. ypu have it exactly backwards. energy density is Wh/Kg and power density is W/kg.”

http://www.mrseb.co.uk/ Sebastian Anthony

Thanks, re: energy/power density. Will fix!

http://www.facebook.com/larry.davidson.16547 Larry Davidson

If you don’t thing 10^5 is impressive you don;t know anything about energy densities

Generally speaking, when someone comes up with a brilliant scientific advance, and won’t let people see how it works, it’s a scam.

And it’s usually the SAME scam. It’s usually a variation of a magic trick that has, literally, been done since the Middle Ages — it’s the same trick that alchemists used to fake turning lead into gold in the Middle Ages through the Renaissance, cheap wine into expensive vintages in the 18th and 19th centuries, and seawater into gasoline in more modern times. To put out energy instead of material takes one further step, but it’s still the same basic trick.

RGlenCheek

If the person controling the effort were simply a scientist trying to advance science, then yes, what you say would make sense, except that such con games are a fool’s game as the scientific community will always catch up and decloak the fraud.
But an engineer who plans to sell his device is a different creature entirely and corporate espionage being what it is today, with some countries generally failing to protect patent rights, filing a patent amounts to simply giving the technology away for free.

Obviously there are very powerful and wealthy oligarchs who do not want to see LENR or anything remotely like it from ever coming into common use. They seem to have successfully seduced and corrupted some, and have paid many to engage in astro-turfing slander campaigns. For example, the claim that Rossi was convicted of fraud while his being acquitted is never mentioned at all.
There is fraud here, but it does not lie with Rossi.

Kalle Last

Have you heard abut the explosion detecting dowsing rod salesman that earned $50M from various governments with the obvious scam? Of course with Rossi’s device it’s a bit harder to earn big money after the first unit is actually sold but he still can get some sponsors to donate him for further research.

RGlenCheek

I doubt this salesman had an independent study done by 7 scientists.
Gullibility on the part of the government at times does not prove gullibility in the event at hand.

Kalle Last

Too bad the leader of the paper has been working with Rossi since beginning and is thus in no way independent. Also considering the “testers” weren’t even allowed to measure as basic things as gamma radiation or power usage with proper tools it’s even hard to say they tested anything. At best they were seeing how Rossi’s setup worked without being able to analyze crucial details about it.

AlainCo

gamma does not change the COP.

for input power they measured it at themainplug before the controller.

even more than that they were allowed to test everything out of the reactor, including what they did not check…

this make improbable that rossi, who was not there, and who was already accused of similar trick (without positive evidence), would have dared to inject anomalous current and manipulate the installation…

moreover the plug was also used for the laptop and other devices, and high DC or HF would have killed or troubles devices….

any test where the tester are alone with the reactor, remove risk of fraud . Only place where fraud can happen is inside the tube and the controller box, if not open. It is normal to protect his IP, and forbid some measurement that may leaks trade secrets… it is business, not openscience.

since energy produced is above chemical, it is not a chemical fraud.

if Rossi is a fraudster he is an alien, or a nuclear fraudster.

whatever was there, was a breakthrough in science…

by the way funny that today nobody ass anymore the tea kettle…

the pathoskeptics method to change target as evidences fulfill their demand is so funny…

it works, end of the story.

time to build an industry… COP is only 6 and it is not yet fantastic.

today we have 3 report, on 3 reactors, when the tester was free to test what he want out of the box, and the COp are 2,3, and 6.

To be improved.

time to be rational.

Would it be honest to say to all pretended skepticstoday too much prudent , comfortably waiting for an authority to decide of the consensus, that they are simply misusing their intelligence and closing their eyes, to a level that make them unable to be responsible to the destiny of other people and business ?

would it be honest ?

would you trust people who in 2005 were laughing at Roubini for his description of subprime crisis ? those who insulted Semmelweis for his lack of theory, those who insulted Shechtman , rejected Wegener, laughed at Barry Marshall, refuted the Wright brothers…?

too comfortable be be skeptic despite evidences.

At least it is something that have a decent probability to be true and useful, and that may be a business opportunity, needing further studies. Some did not missed that point.

–

AlainCo the techwatcher or len-forum

Kalle Last

Had they been able to test gamma radiation they would have had definite data of LENR as it’s impossible for them to occur without it. Is there any viable reason why Rossi shouldn’t allow people to measure it besides that it lack of radiation would have been a definite proof of no LENR going on?

AlainCo

LENR is not classic fusion. gamma seems to be of low energy, or only when the reaction starts up in bad condition…

you should read more papers…

you are like a cowboy who prove that bird don’t exist because there is no bullshit falling from the sky.

anyway you are not more stupid than many physicists… who dropped anomalous heat results because no neutrons… (NASA-Fralick did so in 1989).

RGlenCheek

The guy at the top of the paper was not the leader of the testers. The testers were Swedes.
Too bad you cant read and have to resort to such absurd notions as to assert that these testers didn’t know what the hell they were doing. And you can determine this from outside access to what happened?
Just let go of the hate…..

Kalle Last

Only thing I hate about this case is the sheer amount of bad science surrounding all the testing.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000158361996 Moz Gren

This has the potential to lower the price of copper as well as solve energy problems – if there is a ready source of nickel…. Time to buy nickel?

http://jdg123.myopenid.com/ Josh G.

The metal in a nickel (which, despite the name, is 75% copper) is already worth about 4.5 cents. And hoarding them has no downside since you can always get at least face value for them.

andrewp3

Anybody who wants to critique this has to be able to show how to hoax the published energy and power densities. All else is hot air and displays unacceptable bias.

ThomasF

Easy. You introduce a power source other than the ones measured. The burden is on Rossi or his supporters to prove that such a source could not have existed.

This could easily be resolved if Rossi submitted the E-Cat to an independent lab for testing. Lets even set aside the absurdity of using IR cameras to measure heat enthalpy instead of just measuring it directly.

Lets even allow Rossi to have a minder present at all times to operate the machine, and not allow researchers access to the insides. Just independent researchers, at an independent lab, with a controlled power source and no possibility for hidden power sources, and sufficient operational time to rule out internal power sources other than the claimed effect..

That is easy, straightforward, and allows Rossi to keep his IP hidden from view. Why wasn’t this done for this test?

ThomasF

Out of curiosity, does anyone think its odd that Rossi would choose to reside in Florida? OJ Simpson made the place famous for their laws that shield you from having your assets seized in a civil case.

“Protection of Florida homestead is effective immediately. After purchasing a Florida homestead and moving belongings into the homestead, the homestead is immediately protected from creditors as long as other facts and circumstances show intent to make the new homestead a permanent home. There is no waiting period before Florida’s homestead protection takes effect to protect the debtor’s assets against existing creditors.”

skeptickle

Ad hominem attack?? Last resort of the conspiracy theorists. We suppose Rossi and 11 scientists and engineers are conspiring to… what exactly? Embarrass the U.S. Dept of Energy for failing to recognize LENR??

http://www.facebook.com/nathan.bundick Nathan Bundick

It is unreliable to test radiative heat with the hot air test.

RGlenCheek

‘Easy. You introduce a power source other than the ones measured.’
Easier said than donne, dude. These scientists are not fools and would look for any other power source. They specifically stated that the ‘black box’ Rossi uses is too small for there to have been a chemical source for that power from it, and there were no other cables.
Really, stop getting your ‘factoids’ from Soros talking points.

http://jdg123.myopenid.com/ Josh G.

Scientists often aren’t the best at detecting deliberate scams. There
have been many cases where James Randi, a former stage magician, was
able to figure out how scientists were being fooled by crackpots. In
most of these instances it involved simple conjuring tricks.

RGlenCheek

To make your statement to be relevant, you have to demonstrate that Rossi is a magician on the order of Randi, which he isn’t.

Any fraud Rossi would do would be limited by his expertise, and that is very well within the scope of scientists detecting it.

http://twitter.com/acannedham A Canned Ham

Actually, you have it backwards. Anybody who wants to claim to have invented cold fusion simply has to submit the entire device and process for proper peer review. All else is hot air and displays the traditional signs of the charlatan.

AlainCo

as i said often the method for patho-skeptics and other conspiracy theorist is to move target a,d ask impossible things…

it is impossible for a company to open all it’s trade secrets.

if you want pure science, it is already done, and proven since long.
ENEA, like CEA, NASA GRC, NRL, Spawar, Toyota, Mitsubishi not only have many papers about LENR experimensts, but also more and more element to understand what make the reaction work and not work…

it is also impossible to publish in most science journal member of the usual Nature/Science Cartel.
anyway there are many papers in naturwissenschaften, and in many specialized journal…

continue to ask impossible things … it work to convince the people who are desperate to believe Cold Fusion is as they learn from school…

Just don’t read how MIT frauded their experiment, how Caltech was doing loose calorimetry…

This is the 3rd , and the best, repor about thrird party testing of a LENr reactor.
SRI tested the experimental reactor of Brillouin, Nelson the one of Defkalion…

there is no hope to convince you, point.
there are theories to explain that.
read Roland Benabou, thomas Kuhn, Nassim Nicholas taleb…

http://fedgeno.com/ Fedge

Actually the proper route once you have a working prototype is to file a patent and either sell rights or give them away. This is bullshit LOL

RGlenCheek

Have you ever read what RCA did with Farnsworth patent for the CRT which was used to make televisions?
They wiped their bums with it and stole his technology anyway, and fought it in court for decades.
Yeah, getting a patent is real winner advice, dude.

Actually, once you have a working prototype you just apply for a patent. All else is full-on bullshit :)

lifematters

Won’t work in this case. The US patent office has a standing policy to deny any application for “cold fusion” patents without review. It is classified the same as “perpetual motion” as it doesn’t fit “current”, accepted physical models.

Sorry, no patent coming.

http://www.facebook.com/nathan.bundick Nathan Bundick

except for the last 10 years or so all patents containing the terms “cold fusion” have been categoricly denied as imposible.

ThomasF

Honestly, I spent half of last night reading, and being impressed by the paper. I’d mostly ignored the e-cat story up until now because of the lack of independent testing.

Despite what some folks are claiming about these researchers being partisan (the lead author has been associated with Rossi for years) I firmly believe that these tests are legit.

But I can’t get past the fact that I can think of ways that might spoof an experimental setup like this. If you can get power into the e-cat surreptitiously then it doesn’t matter if you put ammeters on the power cables.

Until Rossi allows testing on a device at an independent facility where you can ensure no power induction or other shennanigans are going on, I don’t think the controversy will be properly refuted. Maybe the researchers took measures to ensure a controlled environment, but the paper mentions nothing about this.

maryyugo

Exactly. This was done entirely on Rossi’s facilities, with his equipment, and the rest of the measurement instruments were assembled by his close associate and personal friend, G. Levi. We don’t know anything more about Rossi’s claims now than we did before this charade. By the way, see Krivit’s article:

Sweet. So complete lack of control over the environment. I’d be interested in hearing questions about the room and the rack the device was mounted on. Was the rack fixed to the floor?

Personally, I’d have demanded to move the rack to a different location during the test, as well as getting access to the walls and ceiling, and just casing the building in general.

But just sliding the rack 10 feet in a random direction would have made me feel a lot better, though an independent facility and test equipment is really required.

ThomasF

Only issue I have with Krivit’s article is this -

“The authors of the paper lack full knowledge of the type and preparation
of the materials used in the reactor and the modulation of input power,
which, according to the paper, were industrial trade secrets.”

The type and preparation of the materials in the reactor is only important from the standpoint of gaining a scientific understanding of the process. But if its a trade secret, then its a trade secret. Period. There is no requirement for scientists to understand a process for it to be commercially valuable.

As to the modulation of input power, I fail to see how that is relevant if the actual power inputs are being measured by ammeters. The value of the invention is because it outputs a LOT more power (in the form of heat) than is being input (in the form of electricity). If the modulation has something to do with that, then its a proper trade secret. All the researchers need to know is the quantity of the input.

My issue is that the ammeters could be fake (though they apparently calibrated them), or much more likely there is a surreptitious source of power that is not being measured. Plus Rossi is a confirmed scam artist doing scam artist things.

But if he were legit, then he would have an absolute right to trade secrets. But to prove that he needs to submit the device for proper testing, where researchers directly control and measure the power input, and directly measure the heat output.

Rossi’s IP is not at risk, and he can have any number of people present to operate the machine and ensure that no trade secrets are revealed. The E-Cat is tiny. It probably takes less effort to take the E-Cat to the testing devices than it does to take the testing devices to the E-Cat. It’s absolutely ridiculous that it has not been done already.

skeptickle

Geez George Hody maryhugo, you are a known fraud and oilco apologist with no science education whatever. The authors of this paper are all well qualified academics whose reputations are on the line. They categorically state they were free to check and examine premises and equipment without no interference or control by Rossi. Who should we believe you and Stovekrivet (also lacking any science credentials) or the 11 scientists and engineers trained in physics and nuclear energy??

purplepartyguy

who let the hag in?

http://www.facebook.com/roger.bird.710 Roger Bird

The hag is a guy, but he is still a hag.

RGlenCheek

Who do you work for, you astroturfing loon?

RGlenCheek

The March test was assmebled under the direction and supervision of the testers. Rossi had no opportunity to fake anything.
Christs sake, if your hyperskeptics are right, Rossi doesnt need to make a working device, as he would have the powers of God Himself to simply pull things from thin air.
Get real. There is no vast conspiracy of reputable scientists from several universities throwing their reputations away to accomodate a fraud by Rossi. Sheesh.

jabowery

The strongest technical argument for the veracity of this report is that the power measured going into the device is 360W and that the way it was measured was from the wall socket through an industry standard power analyzer (PCE-830 Power and Harmonics Analyzer by PCE Instruments). Detractors assert that as the test was conducted on the premises of the company licensing the technology EFA srl, that therefore Rossi could have defrauded the investigators by hidden camera observing when to apply a hidden AC power source of such high frequency, overlaid on the normal power, that it would have been undetectable by the PCE-830. This assertion about the PCE-830’s limitations has not been validated as plausible by PCE Instruments or any other authority.

maryyugo

The limitations of clamp on ammeters are well known and include a very limited frequency response except in extremely expensive and unusual amplified versions which most likely were not used in these experiments. It doesn’t matter how accurate the power meter is if the transducer used to feed it data is very limited.

jabowery

What has to be verified as plausible for the argument to hold water (that the observed glow from the E-Cat HT is reasonably suspected to be a result of Rossi committing fraud with the building’s power source) is that a power level several times that registered can not only be passed through the PCE-830, but that it can be done with sufficient control that the registered power will not be inconsistent with the value expected by the experimenters.

maryyugo

Once again: the power doesn’t go through the PCE-830. It goes through clamp on ammeter transducers which are easily spoofed. As for who should prove what, it’s up to Rossi to provide an independent test. This is far from that. The principal investigator is Levi who was working directly with Rossi from the start. He provided the instruments and did most of the work. Read Krivit’s interview with Swedish scientist Essen who was part of the team. There was NOTHING independent about this report.

skeptickle

George, you sound like a whiny beeatch who has been told her dream of being prom queen will never happen. Hysterical!!

http://jdg123.myopenid.com/ Josh G.

So the scientists don’t know what is actually going on, but are pretty sure they weren’t fooled by the inventor. I’d be more impressed if the device was verified by James Randi.

In
any case, I’ll wait for an actual peer-reviewed paper before breaking
out the champagne. Cold fusion would be awesome, but there have been too
many frauds and too many false starts to take anything at face value
now.

skeptickle

Josh can you provide evidence of Rossi’s fraud?? I am doing some research. Thanks.

This. There have been many good articles written on this guy and his process (popular science did an article on him around a year ago)… I wouldn’t hold my breath on this panning out.

skeptickle

wiki??? The source of slop and hearsay?? I asked for evidence. LOL!!!

RGlenCheek

He has no evidence, only repeated gossip typed into a Wiki article.

DangerMouse

“Anybody who wants to critique this has to be able to show how to hoax the published energy and power densities.”

You have this backwards, science isn’t “you get to claim whatever you want until someone proves you wrong”, it’s “you don’t get to claim anything unless you substantiate it with evidence”.

The paper seems poor from what I’ve already read, they assume an emissivity of 1, when it clearly isn’t (it’s not even black). This isn’t a “conservative” estimate as the paper says, it’s a wildly generous estimate assuming the value that would give them the best possible results.

Not to mention the “super secret” power supply that “had no bearing whatsoever on the power consumption of the device”, no reason to check into it, we’ll just trust that on faith, this isn’t science after all right?

andrewp3

You have the emissivity argument backwards, just like Motl.

DangerMouse

Howso? P=A * emissivity * Stefan’s constant * T^4. Assuming emissivity = 1 gives the highest possible power doesn’t it? If the emmissivity were 0.1 the calculated power would be 1/10th that of if it was 1.

Unless I’m missing something, in which case can you walk through it?

Who’s Motl?

EDIT: Even if I did get it backwards, which is possible, it still seems a very poor setup, they’re just measuring power, it could be a big resistor for all we know. A much better setup like a calorimeter with total control over input (or better yet have it power itself) is needed to be anywhere near convincing.

Thomas Coles

It appears to be backwards because they are computing temperature, not power (power appears to be a function of the aggregate camera sensor response, and temperature is computed backwards from there). In the paper, entering values of less than one yields higher estimated temperatures, so they chose to use 1.0 and go with the lower bound for the calculated temperature data.

From the paper:

“Fig. 7. This image exemplifies the effect of emissivity on the determination of temperatures. The E-Cat HT has been divided in 40 areas; in areas 18 and 20 emissivity has been set to = 0.8 and 0.95, respectively, whereas in all the remaining areas ε has been set to = 1. Measured temperatures appear to be higher in areas 18 e 20 with respect to those recorded in the other areas. If the lower values for εwere extended to all areas, this would lead to a higher estimate of irradiated energy density. For our calculations, therefore – in view of the fact that the effective value of ε was not available for our test, and that it was felt desirable to avoid any arbitrary source of overestimation – ε was left set to = 1 in all areas.”

DangerMouse

Ok thanks for that, I see what you are saying, but just because they assumed a value of ε = 1 because that resulted in the lowest calculated temperatures on the camera does not mean that’s an appropriate value of ε to use when calculating the power once you’ve got your derived temperatures, we know for a fact that ε isn’t 1 in those cases simply because the cylinder isn’t close to black. Using 1 in Stefan-Boltzmann’s Law just because 1 gave the lowest temperatures in an algorithm on the camera does not seem appropriate to me.

Regardless, none of that invalidates my original point in that one doesn’t assume one’s explanation for a given phenomenon is correct until proven otherwise, if that were the case no one can disprove my theory that tiny invisible angels move the planets around in a way that looks like GR, so I must be right!

Thomas Coles

Apparently they agreed with you, because they addressed this in the followup (March) experiment by using calibration dots, which resulted in measured/estimated emissivity of between 0.76 and 0.80 at various locations on the cylinder.

“The choice of placing the thermal camera under the E-Cat HT should also be considered unsatisfactory, as was the impossibility of evaluating the real emissivity of the cylinder’s paint coating. All these issues were taken notice of in the light of the subsequent test held in March.”

and later in the paper:

“Emissivity values for each area were adjusted in each IR camera video sample thanks to the continuing presence of dots: according to position and time, the found values for ε fluctuated between a low of 0.76 and a high of 0.80. Areas subject to the most intense heat were seen to have slightly higher emissivity with respect to peripheral ones, and all showed a slight upward trend as the test progressed, probably because of a change in the properties of the paint.”

RGlenCheek

Congratulations Thomas on your patience.

Richard Lucas

It’s well-written when I can bring myself to suspend disbelief just one more time. Should I go long on nickel?

I hope cold fusion is successful, but if not, there is also the aneutronic fusion that can be a promising option to supply the world’s future energy needs. http://www.youtube.com/v/VUrt186pWoA

RGlenCheek

Technically, this isnt cold fusion, or fusion at all. Why do people persist in refering to it as such? Some kind of smear tactic? It is simply an inacurate label.

http://twitter.com/fznidarsic frank

I wrote a book on cold fusion. “Energy, Cold Fusion, and Antigravity”
Take a peek at Amazon.com

http://www.facebook.com/isaac.a.brown Isaac Brown

I just read the paper and the thermal measurement side is probably fine. They overestimated ‘h’ and thus the heat transfer due to convection. That simplified equation does not fly for such high temperatures in a real room. However, they also neglected the end caps, and still provided power produced without convection, so whatever, good effort, nothing jumps out as terrible method on that end.

On the input power end… The fact that there is a PWM red curve being measured (Chart 7) is a huge red flag; this should be a self sustaining reaction and the electrical connection should have been severed as soon as the device was hot enough to initiate the reaction. I don’t care if they use the electricity to do more than just heat it (maybe they need to reticulate the splines). Put the thing in a Rankine cycle and self generate the electricity. That’s what the HT is supposed to be designed for, just do it.

Let me also tell you that the big blue thing next to the power analyzer (the “TRIAC power regulator”) with the 3 phase in and 3 phase out looks like a servo drive (Kollmorgen?) or active power supply and that means they can change the frequency of the 3 phase power and that means those silly little current measurement clamps (clamp ammeters) on the power analyzer cannot be used to measure the current; they only work on 50Hz or 60Hz power. I’m looking at Figure 4 and they do not have those clamps on the incoming power from the wall to that “TRIAC”, they have them connected on the outgoing side near the E-Cat so they can be made to read any value you want if you know what you’re doing with the “TRIAC” (I keep putting TRIAC in quotes because that acronym can refer to a lot of devices. I want a part number). I’m fairly convinced this mystery device is being used to deceive the power analyzer by tricking the clamp ammeters.

If it was real, they would put it in operation in a steam cycle to prove it. It is not, so they cannot.

andrewp3

Yup, self-booting with zero input power at steady-state, and completely isolated (so you can’t cheat by beaming power into it) is the acid test. Anything less is, for me at least, unconvincing. I can think of several ways to fudge this experiment, and judging by the paper, these ways did not occur to the scientists who wrote the paper. Randi once said that scientists are the easiest audience to bamboozle. I’m not saying that happened; I’m saying that, because that COULD HAVE happened, self-booted is the only conclusive demonstration. And such a demo has not yet been made.

RGlenCheek

Yeah, can you start a simple camp fire with ZERO input power?
No, I didnt think so. So why demand it of Rossi?

andrewp3

I said “at steady-state”. An initial kick-start is obviously necessary.

RGlenCheek

OK, then like an automobile’s internal combustion engine only needs one spark to start its fuel consumption?

Point is you are placing an artificial and irrational demand on Rossis’ ENERGY CATALYZER.

US_Citizen71

If you actually read the paper you would know the clamps for the amp meter were put on the cord leading to wall socket from the power controller, so they were measuring the input power from the wall. Thanks for playing please try again.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=615484121 Rick Nance

The really great thing about stories like this is they can help you thin out your news feeds.

skeptickle

Lots of pseudo-engineers here with absolutely no comprehension of this paper. The authors, all far more qualified than the commentors here, make very clear the careful steps taken to measure input current and voltage. The claims they somehow missed a secret hidden “wire” or energy transmitted by “induction” is pure pseudoscience babble. The E-CatHT has now been tested by highly qualified scientists and the only thing that appears unreliable is reason for the violent antipathy from those embarrassed by its success.

maryyugo

Read Krivit’s interview with Essen. There is NOTHING independent about this work. The principal author, who prepared and tested the instruments and who conducted the major part of the work, is G. Levi who is a personal friend, confidante and close colleague of Andrea Rossi. The work was done on Rossi’s premises and with his power source. See:

Furthermore, if you believe that the proper way to test a high energy thermal source is to leave it hanging in ambient air without cooling, you know nothing about heat transfer or fluid flow physics. These experiments are absurd and prove nothing.

skeptickle

Seriously? krivet is the laughing stock of the publishing and science worlds. He makes up stories to fleece unsuspecting readers into paying for his hokum. As for you George, give us your scientific and academic credentials to critique these 11 scientists and engineers, and maybe we’ll listen.

maryyugo

My name isn’t George. But if I were the person you think I am, that person is vice president of a company which makes thermal instruments! That requires an extensive technical education and experience in exactly the kind of measurements involved in evaluating ecats. But this is no appeal to authority. My identity and credentials are of no importance except to tiny minds like your own, confused as you are, about what matters,

What matters is that Rossi has not had independent confirmation. By pretending that he did, he is committing ANOTHER fraud. Probably an actionable one to investors.

skeptickle

George, “…My identity and credentials are of no importance…”

Yeah. You said it all right there, clown.

RGlenCheek

Yugo is an astroturfing troll. Nothing more, nothing less.

maryyugo

Awww, poor baby. Did I hurt your feelings? Are you in love with Rossi?

purplepartyguy

hag

RGlenCheek

No, you hurt my eyes; your idiocy is radioactive.

http://www.facebook.com/roger.bird.710 Roger Bird

maryyugo, your very name is a lie. So give us one good reason why we should believe ANYTHING that you say.

http://www.facebook.com/roger.bird.710 Roger Bird

maryyugo, if he did what you say he should do with truly independent investigators unknown to him, he would lose his industrial secrets; but you already knew that. When he starts selling E-Cats at Home Depot, are you going to admit that you were wrong? I doubt it. You’ll just change your handle and say that you having been lurking all along cheering for Rossi.

http://www.facebook.com/roger.bird.710 Roger Bird

maryyugo is a guy, so don’t bother being nice to him just because of his handle. This in itself is good reason to distrust him. No matter what is said here on anywhere else, maryyugo will deny it. I guess we could say that HE is an LENR denier.

maryyugo

I am constantly amused by the idiots who think this argument is about the credentials and identity of skeptics when in fact it’s about Rossi and Defkalion and their constant obvious lying, cheating and scamming.

Roger, you don’t have to “believe” anything I say. Read it and think about it for yourself. It’s not anything to take on faith like what “Rossi” says. Either it makes sense to you based on the science or you just don’t understand physics and science enough to have an opinion on stuff like this at all.

When you argue about crap that doesn’t matter, like who somebody is or what their credentials are, you are only hurting your own case not to mention making yourself look terminally stupid and incredibly childish.

http://www.facebook.com/roger.bird.710 Roger Bird

I have thought about it a lot, maryyugo. I do a lot of independent thinking. I think outside of the box pretty much most of the time, whether it is health, nutrition, AGW, or LENR. I know that the Coulomb Barrier is a bitch. But the Coulomb Barrier may not work the same with slow elementary particles. The “Coulomb Barrier” concept was developed using “tools” that travel almost the speed of light. From my perspective, I figure that the Coulomb Barrier is so tough because how we “see” it is only with fast neutrons.

Or else LENR developers are going around the Coulomb Barrier, like using neutrons.

AlainCo

anyway we don’t nee to discuss of theory.
all the tragedy on LENR , like with semmelweis and dan hatcher, is because people with a theory refuse to see facts…

it works, whatever it is, pixie dus, alien antimater, fusion, fission, …
I DONT CARE WHAT IT IS , IT WORKS (in fact I care for later optimisation, but first we have to accept fact)…

needing theory before believing is stupid and unscientific. only people who don’t pay their errors when ignoring a reality can afford that fact.
Sad problem is that with those criteria, most of scientific leaders are stupid, or is it just that they don’t pay their error (we all pay their incompetence today, plus their salaries).

RGlenCheek

shut up, troll

http://www.facebook.com/roger.bird.710 Roger Bird

fairyyugo, Krivit is as much a patho-skeptic as you are, only he believes in LENR.

RGlenCheek

I’ve got a hunch he will be swinging over to support Rossi within the next couple of years.

C. Kirk

For more details on the preparation of
test IBTimes contacted Italian Giuseppe Levi, nuceare physicist at the
University of Bologna and one of the signers of the study. “As stated in the article, we are faced with a non-conventional source of energy” – said the researcher.

Professor Levi praised the transparency with which the engineer. Rossi has allowed him and other scholars to the test: “We
have been able to operate in complete autonomy and freedom. Outset it
was clear that we could publish the results whatever they were.”

On the nature of the reaction that allows the E-Cat to work Professor
Levi has reiterated that it is not a proper chemical reaction or
nuclear or properly: “Exactly. Definitely not chemical in nature. –
Said Levi-L ‘ absence of radiation makes us say that it is a nuclear
power is still new in nature than those known. “

With regard to the production of energy instead of the results of the test are impressive and Professor Levi said: “These
data are contained in the publication. Placing himself in the most
conservative case you have energy density ten times greater than
conventional ones. But this is certainly an extreme understatement.
values ​​are published in the text which are probably more realistic. “

Finally, at our specific question, if it considers that the E-Cat
could revolutionize the energy cleanses, Professor Levi responded with a
terse “Yes, without doubt.”

“NASA dreams of one day putting a cold fusion reactor in every home, car, and plane.” HAHAHAHA!! Yeah right. One day people will learn that these agencies know all about this stuff and have been working very hard to keep it from coming to light. This would destroy every single energy company in the world. No more gas, coal, OIL, nuclear, solar, no more electric companies. You think the powerful men who run these industries have no say at NASA? LOL!!!!

Only two guys at NASA are involved in this. And NASA is desperate for a better energy/power source.

Mike22

Two years. One article. Uncensored archive. Lol, cmon.

RGlenCheek

Cornells archive is not a slop storage shop, dude.

ThomasF

I’m just a computer guy, but here goes. Feel free to flame away, lol.

My best guess for a non cold fusion explanation of the “meltdown” and other tests would be to use a flammable metal powder that will heat up when exposed to an RF source, and that will auto-ignite above a certain temperature. Magnesium is a good guess since it will burn in the absence of oxygen, and the burning is enhanced in the presence of Hydrogen.

The interior of the E-Cat is filled with pressurized hydrogen gas, which would be an ideal burning environment for Magnesium. Even without Hydrogen, Magnesium will reach ~3,100C, which will handily burn through ceramics. Some Thermite mixtures can get even hotter.

If an Aluminum based Thermite mixture was used (alone or in a hybrid with a magnesium ignition source in the case of the November test), it might be even easier to replicate the result. It would have a melting point of ~660C, and once melted it would convect inside of the core and provide for a uniform heat source for the E-Cat. In both cases the power would be supplied by RF sources at either end of the cylinder. Different mixtures of Thermite have different melting and ignition points, and all can be induced to “meltdown” on command.

This might actually be triggered by the electrical “control module” that is connected to the device. Alternatively, in the November test, they could have just punched enough RF power through to ignite the Magnesium/Thermite. In the photos of the “meltdown” the heat sources are clearly at either end of the cylinder, either because the charge was only located there, or because the Thermite had not had time to fully melt and convect before igniting. Once it ignites (by whatever method) you get a “meltdown”.

In the December test, its the same setup with RF sources at either end. The IR camera is underneath the device and cant see the caps, which would be hotter than the rest of the cylinder as the RF signal passed through. Power would be reduced and modulated to only melt the Thermite and allow it to convect within the inner core. (If it is not intended to “melt-down” some other similar, non reactive material could have been used)

In the March test, the setup was changed, with an additional IR camera focused on one of the ends of the cylinder. This would have blocked Rossi from being able to have an RF source at both ends.

However, there is a flange on the other end of the cylinder which might have served as a shield so that the camera was not picking up anomalous readings from the RF source being beamed through the cylinder towards the camera. Rossi says its meant to be connected to a heat exchanger, but the fact is that the flange wasn’t in the previous tests that used just a single IR camera.

In the December test, the device was already started when the researchers arrived (for that matter, it was just two researchers closely aligned with Rossi for those first tests. The “independent” researchers were only there for the March test).

In the March test the device took 2 hours to heat up enough before the ON/OFF modulation of the “reaction” was started. Presumably this is how long it took for the RF beam to melt the powder charge, and the slow “ramp up” of measured electric power is just timed to match the melt process.

skeptickle

Dear Lord dude. Do you really not understand the difference in the spectrum between IR and RF??? Stick to computers, please.

ThomasF

Goodness gracious me. I guess that it never occurred to me that an RF beam striking a material will vibrate the molecules and generate heat, which will then be emitted in the IR spectrum.

BTW, just to be clear, I am referring to the EM spectrum writ large when I am speaking about an RF signal. My suspicion is that RF is more straightforward for this application because of its ability to better penetrate the cap.

The ideal frequency would be one that penetrates the cap but is absorbed by the powder in the core. Choosing the right core material obviously helps with this, and it need not be a powdered Thermite that provides most of the heating. My hypothesis really only requires a Thermite like material during the November meltdown.

skeptickle

Seriously? Dielectric heating at RF range (10-20mHz) is a near field effect requiring near contact between radiator and target. Also, how does Thermite burn at such low temp (300C) continuously for 120 hours??? With no residual gases emitted? Stick to your CPUs.

ThomasF

What are you talking about? RF range is a lot larger than 10-20MHz. RF heat sealers operate at 27 MHz, and even though they use a small antenna they have reactive near field effects within 2 meters that can burn the ankles of the operators if not shielded properly, despite having a small antenna.

A larger directional antenna can dramatically extend the range of near field effects, and all that is required for this application is maybe 6-10 meters? Many communication systems have dangerous near field effects extending over a hundred meters from the antenna.

And when did I ever say that Thermite burned at 300C for 120 hours? I specifically mentioned that Thermite (or something similar) was only really necessary for faking the meltdown.

As to residual gasses, what device was searching for or measuring those? Is it your contention that a LENR reaction burning through steel and ceramic (and thus releasing pressurized hydrogen) would have no residual gasses?? Are you mad?? No data from the November test was included at all. Just a summary of what happened. There were residual gasses regardless of the cause, and we have no clue whatsoever as to what they were.

Look, I am not gaga in love with the RF hypothesis. I can see numerous problems with an RF explanation, not the least of which that it might destroy or interfere with the nearby equipment and computers being used for the test. The power requirements or size of the antenna might also be impractical.

Regardless, while I work in the computer industry, my degree is in Biology. So I do know something about the scientific method. And whatever practical problems there might be with transmitting power into this system wirelessly doesn’t change the fact that this was not a controlled environment.

There are many avenues for power to be introduced into the system surreptitiously, and the equipment and methodology used in the “experiment” do nothing to guard against that. If you are not able to reliably measure power input, then measurements of power output are meaningless.

This paper is not science. It is a dog and pony show disguised as science to try and convince folks who can’t tell the difference that this device is real.

AlainCo

“It was not a controlled environment”

You got it !

Rossi could not control all what hapen, or could hapen, what the scientist would check, could see, could move…

smoke and mirror were impossible because the spectators were alone with the trick.

If it was the only report, but it is the 3rd repor on a LENR reactor, by 3 companies, competing, following thousands of experiments that worked, following many kind of calorimetry, tritium, helium, correlation, transmutations, radiations…

give us a break and admit it works.

at least there is much more chance it works than not, and sure it is an opportunity.

The burden of proof is on you computer guy, to demonstrate an RF system operating at distance to produce 300-860C and paper’s measured power output (~160net kWh, Dec) over the course of 100 hours continuously. The paper is written by qualified, accredited scientists with background in physics, and nuclear physics, which, as you probably know, is not biology. Your comments are technical hoaxery at best, ignorant at worst.

RGlenCheek

And have it run for 4 or 5 days straight?
lol, sure.

http://www.facebook.com/roger.bird.710 Roger Bird

So you are saying that these heavy weight physicists, whose reputations are on the line, and one of whom was the head of the Swedish Skeptical Society, are in on a scam to bilk the world out of billions but are too stupid to realize that their careers would be ruined and they would land in prison if they got caught, and also too stupid to realize that getting caught would be a certainty.

Freethinker Lenr

I fully agree.

That fraud would be even remotely involved here is simply ridiculous.

maryyugo

Roger, I’m certainly not saying that the scientists cheated. I am saying that Rossi has already shown that he’s good at sleight of hand and the scientists fell for it. They were looking for science and they got deception. They simply were not ready for that. Maybe next time… if there is one.

http://www.facebook.com/roger.bird.710 Roger Bird

Hey fairyyugo, Rossi has never demonstrated sleight of hand; that is just your imagination. And sleight of hand cannot happen when the magician is out of the room 24/7 for 4 days. Your explanation defies reason.

RGlenCheek

stop slandering Rossi, troll

http://www.facebook.com/roger.bird.710 Roger Bird

But ThomasF, your chemical explanations won’t work for 4 days, or the MIT setup that went for over 100 days.

maryyugo

@CapitalistOppressor:disqus
Actually, there is probably nothing hot in the device other than the electrical heaters. If there was a nuclear reaction in the little sealed devices Rossi says are inside the reactor, you could see the hot spots on his thermogram photos. And you can’t. End of that story. Rossi is faking by using an electrical heater.

This is not fusion of any type. You had a perfectly good description of the process involved (LENR) in the article, but went on to refer to it as “fusion”. There are no atomic nuclei (entities containing protons) fusing. It’s an electron capture followed by a neutron capture, then a beta decay.

It’s really cool, but why refer to it as something it’s not? If you want to grab attention, refer to it as “cold fusion” in the title then explain why it’s NOT fusion.

Best regards

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1020618379 Morgan Burnham

semantics. hydrogen is turning into helium and nickel is turning into copper. who cares what it’s called. lose the ego. let’s all work together to solve our energy crisis.

RGlenCheek

Whether it is fusion or not fusion is NOT semantics, dude. Science is built on such fine distinctions which you dont seem to grasp at all.

Ed Holmes

I’d call it a new form of fusion personally. Regardless of the intermediate steps you start with hydrogen and after a number of steps it produces a final heavier product helium containing the fused nuclei of multiple hydrogen atoms.

Regardless of whether they went through an intermediate step of not technically being atomic nuclei for a while.

“Nuclear fusion is defined very precisely by its products and emissions, their respective energies and the relationships among the products.

“Cold fusion” discoverers Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons never saw the correct signatures of nuclear fusion, and neither has anyone else. There are at least eight significant differences between the signatures of nuclear fusion and those of LENRs.

“But the science shows that there are indeed nuclear products and nuclear emissions from these low-energy nuclear reactions, and this is where Fleischmann and Pons were correct. Not only are the products and emissions uncharacteristic of nuclear fusion, but they also cannot possibly be the result of chemistry.

I grasps everything pretty well. but seems to me science is just built on ego and pettiness anymore. no one can say with 100% confidence what is actually happening so I think if you don’t have something positive to contribute then just keep your mouth shut

RGlenCheek

If it really is classic nuclear fusion then wouldn’t there be gamma radiation? Why not?
Different output from what nuclear fusion produces would seem to indicate it is not nuclear fusion as currently defined.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1020618379 Morgan Burnham

Some experiments have detected radiation, while others have not. We’re clearly in uncharted territories so I don’t think we should be sticking to traditional definitions. I think we need to throw out everything we think we know, and start over.

RGlenCheek

When it was discovered a little more than a century ago that the speed of light approaching Earth moving in its orbital direction was just as fast as the speed of light coming to Earth in a direction opposite to its orbit, there was a lot of panic. This anomaly spawned the theory of general relativity, IIRC.
Still they didn’t throw out everything; they kept those concepts of Newtonian physics that seemed to still define what was known, and dropped what didn’t.
The fact is, as I understand it, the vast majority of physicists expect gamma radiation from classic fusion. The process of radioactive decay where a nucleus gives off energy from essentially accepting a neutron, is already defined as not being a nuclear reaction.
Maybe there are better ways of labeling this new process, maybe not, but to continue referring to it as a fusion process seems to create more confusion that it clarifies. So why not call it LENR?

RGlenCheek

Morgan, I edited my response, and apologized.
I was being an ass, please forgive me.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1020618379 Morgan Burnham

no need to apologize. I didn’t take it personally.

RGlenCheek

thanks, its much appreciated.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Scott-Dempsey/8357693 Scott Dempsey

Semantics? Really? Words have meaning, especially in science. Don’t call something that it’s not. The reason that everyone discounted cold fusion in the first place was because they knew that nuclear fusion was impossible at these temperatures because of the coulomb barrier. And they were correct. Now that there is an at least plausible mechanism for the anomalous heat production (if extensive peer review actually confirms this), let go of the old nomenclature. The term cold fusion should be avoided like the plague, if not for the erroneous usage, then for the stigma attached to it.

AlainCo

if the problem is that it is not fusion…
why did the scientis deny the scientific result…

I don’t deny the sun because I don’t have a theory for it ?

Jokig : thomas kuhne explain well in “structure of scientific revolution” that scientist deny anomalies in their theory untill the find a theory…

they deny the anomalous heat that was proven, accepted tweaked papers, loose calorimetry, they used pathologic reasoning (like denying success because of others failures, or denying heat because no neutron)…
It is normal, frequent,yet without being prepared to it make me vomit at first.

that focus on theory is the great cause of LENr tragedy…

facts are facts, and theory is a consequence, not a requirement. clearly most scientists don’t agree. most journals don’t agree… and parrots repeat those stupidities like parrots.

Scott D.

They denied the results for a variety of reasons, including non-reproducibility. If it net energy production (in excess of chemical energy) were repeatable or, in the very least, even demonstrable, scientists would’ve been all over verification years ago. Do you have any idea of the prestige associated with a (CONFIRMED) discovery like this? Now, remove the burden of an explanatory theory for this phenomenon; some scientifically clueless corporation would’ve engineered the device without complete understanding and patented it by now, don’t you think?

When you have a non-reproducible result whose explanation is just plain impossible (you cannot fuse nuclei–as was proposed years ago–under the stated conditions), it tends to be looked upon with skepticism.

And, let’s not forget that the experiment in this article STILL hasn’t been independently verified.

You’ve accepted some “facts” which may, in fact, not be facts.

It’s just not nuclear fusion.

RGlenCheek

If it is nuclear fusion then why isn’t there any significant gamma?

IF this is to be considered nuclear fusion then we need to redefine it.

But why do that when Widom Larsen explains it well enough?

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1020618379 Morgan Burnham

sorry I didn’t articulate that very well. the point I was trying to make is they have no clue what is actually happening inside the chamber. so why argue about labels and names or whether it is fusion or not? is there any data saying it is “an electron capture followed by a neutron capture then a beta decay” how do you know it is not some new form of fusion?

RGlenCheek

I would guess that one should use exact terms and not inaccurate terms because to do so creates confusion, misunderstanding and general imprecision.
Are you an engineer or scientist?

Scott D.

Widom and Larsen published a paper that put forth a (more) plausible mechanism for the process that produces heat and copper (if nickel is used) which avoids and nuclear fusion.

Basically, the effective mass of an electron can change based on the band properties (and other conditions) of a metal. Add a proton (hydrogen nucleus) and hydrogenic atoms form with theses “heavy” electrons. With a decreased Bohr radius, the chance of electron capture increases. (See the decay of muonium–an atom made of a proton and the electron’s heavier cousin, the muon.) The electron capture produces a neutron (and a neutrino). With an excess of free neutrons of appropriate energy, they can be captured by the nickel nuclei. This produces an unstable isotope of nickel, which then beta decays, producing an electron, an anti-neutrino, and a proton. This extra proton changes the nucleus from nickel to copper. Or, so the story goes. This all is a bit convoluted, but at least it’s not completely impossible from the outset, unlike the claimed “fusion”.

The problem (among many) is that nickel-62 (with a relative natural abundance of 3.6%) must capture the neutron in order to produce copper-63, a stable isotope. I’d be curious to see some results using Ni-62 enriched nickel.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1020618379 Morgan Burnham

yeah I’ve read the Widom & Larson theory. it was way over my head though. How do you think Rossi and his ‘secret catalyst’ fits into WL theory? His ‘secret catalyst’ is just aluminum added to a distilled water / potassium hydroxide solution. I believe it’s something like 2 Al(0) + 6 H2O –(KOH)–> 2 Al(+3) + 6 OH(-) + 3 H2

” It’s not “independently verified” until they look inside it.”
nice trick of patho-skeptic.
Sure Rossi does not want people to know his IP… ok he is irrational, paranoid, aware of reality… but it is so…
by asking opening the box, you simple use the method to ask somethink impossible to justify your point.

that paper just show that something produce energy, either alien, LENR, or magic, dunno what it is, but it works.

the tester played alone with the reactor, with the mainplug, so there is no trick, beside a secret thing inside the tube.
If it is a trick, it is non chemical, non radioactive, and it produce heat.

or else you can put in doubt all science since Archimedes.

some do.

http://www.facebook.com/simoncooke Simon Cooke

No, it’s not a non-chemical trick. It’s a NICKEL HYDROGEN BATTERY. He tells you the ingredients himself! It uses Nickel, Hydrogen, and an unknown catalyst. It even REQUIRES load resistors to generate heat! IT’S A BATTERY.

http://www.facebook.com/roger.bird.710 Roger Bird

But no battery going at that level can last 116 hours. What you say is completely foolish. Even if it was just a battery, as you think, it is a battery the likes of which the world has never known.

http://www.facebook.com/simoncooke Simon Cooke

It plugs into the wall. You didn’t miss that bit right? Look up NiMH charging, and how the cells go exothermic once they reach 80% charge.

AlainCo

please read the paper before making you look ridicule.

this battery would have produced more energy that anything chemical… good battery, big breakthrough in battery science !

Rossi should patent it!

http://www.facebook.com/simoncooke Simon Cooke

More energy than anything chemical? By what measure? I can guarantee you I know of plenty of chemical reactions that put out more energy than this thing. Most of them involve nitrogen.

RGlenCheek

It would help if you would read TGD article which would explain to you by what measure.

RGlenCheek

Who pays your astroturfing salary, troll?

http://www.facebook.com/simoncooke Simon Cooke

I dunno. You tell me. I have a footprint on the internet a million miles wide, and I’m posting from my facebook account.

You obviously are either dishonest, dumb as a bag of rocks, or …. who knows?
Maybe you could just RTFA?

http://www.facebook.com/roger.bird.710 Roger Bird

Simon, I have been following this story for 1.5 years, and LENR per se has been verified hundreds of times. Rossi has been verified four times, three by the team that wrote the report and once by Christos Stremmenos. I don’t think that it is a scam. You are welcome to your opinion, but I think that it is true. The people who verified it are all heavy weight physicists. One was the chair of the Swedish Skeptics Society.

http://www.facebook.com/simoncooke Simon Cooke

I’ve been following it for a while too.

From the paper: “As mentioned previously, the E-Cat HT needs resistor coils in order to work”. Why? You know what else needs resistor coils to put out heat? Batteries. This is a nickel-hydrogen battery. Look up nickel-halide chemistry. Look up the fact that charging a nickel-hydrogen battery at 80% of its charge becomes exothermic.

What’s more, the paper is pretty lame in a lot of ways. No, they weren’t allowed to test the running device – that one was running before they got there. They did weigh one that wasn’t running though. (face palm). Really? That’s not suspicious AT ALL.

The supposed “fusion byproducts”… are actual normal impurities found in commercially available “pure” nickel samples. You can’t get rid of them. That’s how nickel comes.

… and so on and so on. But seriously, don’t take my word for it. READ UP ON NICKEL METAL HALIDE CHEMISTRY.

http://www.facebook.com/roger.bird.710 Roger Bird

Simon, the “battery” lasted 96 and 116 hours, and was turned off by hand. I don’t care what you call it, it lasted WAY too long for any conventional energy source.

http://www.facebook.com/simoncooke Simon Cooke

Read the paper, and look at the design of the device. The reactor kept putting out heat for 116 hours, and was turned off by hand. Turned off how?

They UNPLUGGED IT FROM THE GRID.

You do know that this thing requires a power supply to run, right?

RGlenCheek

No, it does not. It requires a power supply to initiate the heat and reaction, but after that can run unconnected.

You would know that if you had really been reading up on the subject, you astroturfing troll.

http://twitter.com/stonelaughterRL Tom Kelsall

Let’s see what happens when his research is repeated by his peers. There is no way this will be “a scientific discovery” until that happens. Before then, it’s just a controversy-generating web news story. Pointless even speculating on its veracity until then.

http://www.facebook.com/roger.bird.710 Roger Bird

The E-Cat secret sauce has already been repeated by Christos Stremmenos at http://www.prometeon.it/news.php Search down the page to “Stremmenos”. LENR has been replicated many times. Rossi’s secret sauce only once that I know of at the address above.

Mats Svensson

This will definitely work, perhaps some guy says.

http://twitter.com/adwol That guy

Iron marks the peak in nuclear stability, creating heavier nuclei than this (i.e. turning Nickel into Copper) does not produce energy but requires it.

http://www.facebook.com/roger.bird.710 Roger Bird

That guy, that may be true in theory, but we are groping in dark at the atomic level. Anyway, Rossi has changed his mind recently about this and the article above is incorrect. Rossi and others are saying that the main reaction is probably hydrogen to helium and that nickel to copper is a by-product. Perhaps nickel to copper dampens the reaction. What really counts is whether it works or not, not whether it fits theory or not. Theory will just have to try to keep up.

Why do you astroturfers slander people like rossi so much when you obviously dont know a damned thing about him or his work?
Please, ask your momy to let you outside to play, OK?

Freethinker Lenr

If you refer to Pons&Fleicshmann, you are talking about one of the darkest moments in science history, where two prominent Chemists were character assassinated by peer scientists embroiled in high energy physics with an enormous financial stake in the balance.

Since then, dear Phil, so many replications in a diverse set of configuration has been made, that it is a shame of giant proportions that this new physic has not been allowed to emerge.

Humanity has not been severed well by this betrayal.

Phil

character assassinated? well maybe, but claims that you have created a cold fusion reactor, totally false and misleading, they wouldn’t let independent labs verify their claims and eventually like most lies, the truth comes out on these snake oil salesmen.

Freethinker Lenr

I believe the real snakes at MIT got what they deserved…

And Phil, rewriting the history will not help. In no way did they stop others wanting to verify their claims. The problem was that most of those trying to reproduce the phenomenon did it wrong, they even had trouble them selves repeating it on command – as it simply was not understood how it worked.

MIT doctored their result as to show no excess heat. They even held a party over the demise of “cold fusion” before they even published their doctored result. Search for Eugene Mallow on the web, and check out who he was and what he experienced.

A freaking disgrace is what it is. A betrayal.

Phil

2013 – 1989 = 24 years and no one has come out publicly to reproduce their cold fusion technology and have it independently verified.

lenr-canr.org is a repository of scientific and other work maintained by Jed Rothwell.

There have been many reproductions. They are documented but not much has been allowed into mainstream science publications as the research area has been burn marked as “pathological science” by forces that did not want to see any competition on the future energy (which would spell hot fusion) or compete with Big Oil.

Check out names as Mike McKubre, Edmund Storms, Piantelli (there are many more). Check their standing in society and see what they achieved in this field deprived of real opportunity to publish. This has been a low burning field for 24 years by dedicated souls all over the world, most notably in US, Europe and Japan.

Let me make this very simple for everyone here (and I quote): “The research paper, which hasn’t yet undergone peer review, seems to confirm both the existence of cold fusion, and its potency”.

1) This paper has not been peer-reviewed yet – which means a serious physicist and/or chemistry PhD (which I am not) could find serious flaws in it.

2) This paper “seems” to confirm cold fusion – it does not confirm it. At least just yet. Misleading sensationalist titles and all that.

This is the way science works, people: you test something, then you test it again, then you test it again.

Then you publish and other people will test whatever it is that you published. They will try to reproduce your experiment, and usually will invest a bit more time and money (and better equipment) to make sure it’s valid and not just complete fantasy.

And, usually, someone who is smarter or more thorough than you are will shoot down in flame your nice little experiment. That’s life.

As far as I am concerned, the biggest red flag that came up is that the whole thing seems a bit amateurish and poorly thought-out. Off the top of my head, the “testers” do not seem to have had a lot of equipment at their disposal. I think placing thermal and radiation sensors directly on top, or in the immediate vicinity of the machine would have been a much better solution than placing them at a distance. Then again, my area

The direct energy input should have been measured (but I may have missed this in the paper itself) and there is always the possibility that the whole thing is a weird chemical reaction that has never been discovered until now, instead of “cold fusion” (which seems pretty hot btw).

Please note that I absolutely have no position for or against the E-CAT. My position is simply to say that this needs to be verified and tested and challenged with a lot more than just a single paper.

Freethinker Lenr

For being a person not well oriented in the subject you seem to have very distinct opinions. How very curious. Interested in knowing more than what was is in the “single paper”? Check out http://lenr-canr.org/

http://www.facebook.com/dunsworth1 Dan Unsworth

Let’s face it; even if this was proven to be legitimate in an independent laboratory, the chances of those findings being made public are near zero. Flaws and errors will be fabricated in order to debunk the entire thing and we will see stories about Rossi being a fraud posted right across the internet. Why? Because the world’s big energy companies simply wont allow an easily produced and extremely low cost energy source to become so abundant that their main asset becomes redundant.

Even if Rossi’s work has some genuine merit to it and his work turns out to be a huge stepping stone towards a new clean energy source. He won’t get credit for it, in fact no one will. At least not for a hundred years or more… once the world’s fossil fuels have been exhausted.

Am I cynical? You’re damn right I am!

Freethinker Lenr

Well now…

Let’s face this instead:

We can certainly make decision makers know that we want clean, secure and in-expensive energy. It is sort of the “political correctness” thingy right now. The environment. CO2 emission. Etc. Etc.

LENR as principle is real, been proven over and over. Andrea Rossi has an apparatus that utilizes effects in the realm of LENR. Independent 3rd part study show, that whatever it is, it does produce excess energy.

They might be cautious and possibly right now operating in a disruptive manner towards LENR. However that is, big economic interests will follow suit and move their interests to either other sectors or to LENR based technology.

Also, the proliferation of LENR based energy technology will take some time, atleast to cover all areas where we use depletable energy sources today. With disruptive technologies as LENR is, there are ample opportunity for the creative to make a lot of money.

There are all the reasons in the world to be positive, and to bring the information onwards. Tell friends, tell local politicians and tell media etc.

Is my glass half full (as opposed to half empty)? Damn right it is! :)

http://www.facebook.com/people/Dave-Thawley/1611984095 Dave Thawley

where are they based ? if its not America then guessing America will find terrorists these in the next couple of weeks and go liberate the crap
out of them with their aircraft and drones

I don’t care how secretive or good this tech is. ITS USELESS unless he can get it into a large enough number of hands to prevent its “suppression” cheap energy WOULD cause wars as economies of greed flat out failed. and fast. the only way to prevent such a world wide war on a scale that would make WW2 look PUNY in comparison would be to get this tech into “SO MANY HANDS” so “quickly” that its adoption occurred essentially over night into enough hands that those people could PREVENT WAR by peacefully overthrowing the suppression seeking government without having to kill anyone. IE by force of numbers. ANYTHING less than that will result in either all out war or massive suppression of the technology.

CHAIRYCORDIAL

Liberty Newspost

•

a day ago
“Meanwhile, we all should hope and pray that Rossi’s invention and others like it are successful.”

NICE, A PRAYER REACTOR!!! WE MONEY NOW

Julian Stirling

The paper is on the arXiv is a joke full with elementary errors, such as assuming the the device is a perfect black body instead of picking a sensible emissivity. The uncertainty analysis has not been done at all instead an arbitrary value of 10% has been used (especially small seeing as there is a T^4 dependence!). No corrections for the fact that the are looking at the side of a cylinder not a flat plane are applied.

It is worth noting that all analysis was done in excel, and that even simple data logging for the electrical measurement was not performed. Instead a camera was set up facing an instrument and a wrist watch to give them their time stamped data! It speaks volumes for the competency of the researchers, if they cant perform simple data logging tasks how can we believe them capable of not making huge systematic errors, such as not setting an emissivity (except two arbitrarily different emissivities when the results looked weird!).

Then the format of the paper is shocking, only 9 references on a 29 page paper, one is a wiki link to an SVG image! Much of the data is screen shots of software which makes one wonder if they knew how to export an manipulate the data properly. It is also filled with arbitrary photographs which are poorly taken, and none of the equations are properly typeset. I know of no journal which would accept such a submission.

No reputable journal will publish this. It would not get a passing mark from me in the second year undergraduate physics labs I mark.

http://profiles.google.com/jedrothwell Jed Rothwell

You wrote: “The paper is on the arXiv is a joke full with elementary errors, such as assuming the the device is a perfect black body instead of picking a sensible emissivity. The uncertainty analysis has not been done at all instead an arbitrary value of 10% has been used (especially small seeing as there is a T^4 dependence!). No corrections for the fact that the are looking at the side of a cylinder not a flat plane are applied.”

The authors noted all of issues you list. They show that their settings for the items you list all reduce the estimate of output heat. For example, correcting for a cylinder would increase the estimate of heat. Using a number less than 1 in the IR camera software would increase the temperature and the heat.

Even though they chose the most conservative estimates for all parameters, the excess heat far exceeds input power.

JesusLover

More proof god does exist. Checkmate atheists!

http://www.facebook.com/bigdknowles Derek Knowles

How does the scientific discovery of a proper way to do Cold Fusion prove that God Exist? This evidence honestly doesn’t go either way, Stop trying to turn everything into some kind of religious jargan and simply appreciate what scients and a man has done to improve the world.

JesusLover

Do you ever even read a bible? John 3:16 says “Onto man I behold the power of fusion, not hot, not warm, but cold.” I wouldn’t expect you to understand this.

http://www.facebook.com/bigdknowles Derek Knowles

First of all, I don’t believe in the bible. Even if I did believe in the Christian God, the bible has been edited so many times by the church that it is but a shadow of it’s former self and the religion itself is a disgrace to the man you claim to worship. Also, I hate the fact I’m going to have to quote a piece of that fictitious book, but “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” is John 3:16 Nice try, but your points are still invalid.

Second, flying cars have been in testing for several years, they require a pilots license to operate though.

JesusLover

Exactly. They are called plains. Have you even ever seen a plain flying overhead since Obama has been elected? I haven’t. Ever wonder why?

Spider Jerusalem

Oh, I get it. You’re trolling. Carry on.

Eric Schell

I thought those were fields.

Luis Matos II

it’s called being facetious…

RGlenCheek

Dude, God does exist; I have met Him once….lol

preilly2

How incredible if true—a renewable energy source that would almost instantly cut the feet out from under OPEC and the petrochemical corporations. I would not be surprised, however, to see these organizations do their best to sabotage cold-fusion type projects before they can become a real threat to them.

http://www.facebook.com/roger.bird.710 Roger Bird

Way to late!!!!

Nono

On the topic regarding electrical measurements the report says that the measurements were done with a PCE-830. The PCE-830 monitored the 3 phases only and computed the energy consumption with data collected on the 3 phases. The PCE-830 can be fooled if the setup isn’t as expected. For example, the ground might be not the ground but a hidden phase. That’s why they should have checked:

– The quality of the ground

– The quality of the 3 phases regarding the neutral or between phases

– The quality of the neutral (if present and used)

– The quality of the 50 Hz of the power line

http://www.facebook.com/roger.bird.710 Roger Bird

Your assumptions are that the testers are stupid and ignorant.

Nono

No at all ! I say, there is no mention about this topic in Levi’s report. The input power is a crucial parameter that needs to be fully explained in all details to remove any doubs.

“Given the deliberately conservative choices made in performing the measurement, we can reasonabley state that the E-Cat HT is a non-conventional source of energy which lies between conventional chemical sources of energy and nuclear ones.” (i.e. about five orders of magnitude more energy dense than gasoline, and a COP of almost 6).

It’s a scam. None of the types of tests you would do to verify actual fusion is occuring are being done; rather, a bunch of easy-to-stage effects are being shown. Here’s a big one: gamma radiation. A real cold-fusion reaction would put off a measurable amount of gamma radiation. We have gamma meters able to measure ridiculously small amounts (i.e. extremely fine sensitivity) of said radiation; on the order of being able to detect if someone dumped a bucket of liquid gold into the Earth’s oceans (that is, tell the difference between before and after the gold was added). Yet, they don’t do that. It’s a cheap and definitive test. It doesn’t give away any trade secrets or anything else. Yet is isn’t being run. There’s a bunch of similar tests that would yield definitive proof, but, somehow, only these other vague tests are being run, and the veracity of these other “tests” is horrible – because, there are lots and lots of different things that might cause the tests to show something. This is just fake science.

AlainCo

about gamma you make the usual error og best physicis and cowboys.
A cowboy i see denied the existence of birds. If cows could fly it would cause big bullshit to fall, and you don’t see it.

so birds don’t exists.
If you don’t understand the analogy, don’t talk on the subject please. It is serious.

LENR is working, but it is not a cow. don’t look for bullshit from a LENR reactor…
it is more common in tokamak, like gamma are.

note also that some gamma heve been mesured, and rossi is afraid of gamma measure because he claim some competitors (celani) get trade secret from that… maybe defkalion too… he is paranoid like a man that own a trillion dollar invention… maybe not so irrational.

Some people don’t trust banks, he does not trust patent yet…

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002378283107 Michał Kubacki

Sorry, not buying it. I’ll wait for a peer reviewed paper in Science and some independent experiment result duplication by not associated laboratories around the world.

skeptickle

Golly Michal and “Dood” just happen to post the exact same disinfo phrase at the same time. Spamming the good news of LENR much boys??? How ’bout you go out and get a real job for once in your life??

AlainCo

Science have a public policy, with a cartel of other journal, not to publish anything on cold fusion.

you can look at that article on how nature refused to update fraud and errors in former Caltech and MIT failed cold fusion experiences.

when LENr was a lab toy producing few watts, pathoskeptics were asking for tea kettle… no more possible now, it works (this report is the 3rd one by a 3rd company, with a 3rd independent tester)…

you may ask also a COP infinite (not yet engineered… it is engineering, not magic of hollywood film).
Or opening the reactor to check the internal (even if no chemical can produce so much heat). Note that Defkalion shown the internal of Hyperion to nelson, just did not allow him to analyse the secret powder, patent pending.

there is no way to please a pathoskeptic.

by the way, did you notice how many things most people ignore, yet they give their opinion.

Advise to serious people : ask us for the data and make your own opinion…

Thomas Kuhn theory explain that during a paradigm change, scientists are not able to accept facts until there is a total perfect theory, and good interest to change opinion. That is human science ! based on experimental result published in history.

nassim nicholas taleb explain that only garage inventor can innovate… guess what is happening today ?

AlainCo– the techwatcher of LENR-forum

Dood

Sorry, not buying it. I’ll wait for a peer reviewed paper in Science and
some independent experiment result duplication by not associated
laboratories around the world.

Haardcase

It still has the magic sealed box that nobody can look into. That ought to make everyone skeptical.

call me a conspiracy nut but I blame that on oil & gas. you have to be pretty naive to think the largest industry in the history of humankind would not try and restrict its competition. give it time, LENR will come out and no one can stop it.

The process of LENR _has_ been repeated in a number of experiments around the world, including Japan, Italy and MIT. One experiment in Japan even showed a self-sustaining reaction that, once initiated, did not require any input power to sustain.

Rossi and Defkalion _are_ singled out for purporting much higher energy densities than the other scientists, but to anyone who says the process is “voodoo science”, please debunk this article from CERN and all its independently repeated and verified experiments, or STFU.

AlainCo

add to those 2 tested reactors, the one of Brillouin, tested by SRI, at COP around 2.
It is still a concept-reactor, wet high pressure electrolysis, but they are working on a dry version.

the domain is crowded with evidences… tritium, he4/heat, various calorimetry…
condition of LENR are more and more understood, but it is still not perfectly known…
no theory works…

anyway it works.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1754397507 Rick Bonenfant

If this is legit these guys will be dead soon

Patrick

I am EXTREMELY skeptical of this device. If they dont know what is in the cylinder how can they possibly verify any sort of energy density? Besides, more fundamentally, iron has the least amount of potential energy in the nucleus. To get energy out of a nuclear reaction you have to move toward iron. Fusion for lighter elements, fission for heavier ones. He starts out with an element heaver than iron element and goes to an even heavier one which moves you further away from iron. That should take energy not liberate it. I call BS

Francisnocab

By measuring the size of the cilynder, the input energy and the output energy. It is not difficult to understand.

http://www.facebook.com/simoncooke Simon Cooke

So basically, if the cylinder contains something which gives off energy, then it will read net positive? (output > input)? What will that tell you?

follow the link to lenrproof, and to my article on scientific evidences…

http://www.facebook.com/dave.macdonald.549 Dave MacDonald

Hopefully Rossi has already applied for his patent on the process. If it is developed large scale the U. S. treasury does not have enough money to cover the riches he will earn. Likewise the losses to .other producers will no doubt be substantial as well. I hope he has plenty of bodyguards.

http://www.facebook.com/robert.ivey.75 Robert Ivey

Its more then likely a scam.
Secret additives alone have Scam Alert bells ringing…

AlainCo

ask an industrial about his secret additives, before he could patent them.
I agree Rossi is strange, but here wo don’t question his technology, only if it produce heat beyond what chemical can do.

He let a team test his reactor, or course not opening it, but playing with the outside plug, with thermal and electrin input energy…

the result around 6, les no credible possibility of a COp of 1, and not a chemical reactor…
whatever it is it is not chemical and producing much heat…

moreover it is the 3rd company to publish similar independent test, where testers could install their instruments and test everything else the internal details.

it can be a magician trick, but this magician tricks produce energy above anything chemical. tell me alien technology or black magic, I don’t care…
I prefer to assume it is nuclear…

PlanetOrphan

It’ll just be pressure, Great work Andrea Rossi, I’d buy one

(If it was cheap enough :-)

http://johnkgoodman.com/ John K Goodman

every five years….

http://www.facebook.com/roger.bird.710 Roger Bird

Why would these investigators collude with Rossi? They have their careers, their reputations. Why would they throw that away for Rossi or his scam and money. It doesn’t make any Occam.

One investigator was a past president of the Swedish Skeptics Society. Why is it that you patho-skeptics are so all-knowing that you can see what is happening from your computer desk, yet these real scientists and real skeptics were so stupid and so easily fooled. It doesn’t make any Occam.

A much more Occam explanation is that you patho-skeptics have a psychological terror of change and thinking outside of the box. You have anxiety attacks just thinking about a new idea. You are the sort of people who denied the Wright Bros. until 1908, and besmirched Wegener for 50 years, just because you couldn’t think outside of the box and couldn’t stand it when anyone else thought outside of the box.

AlainCo

you don’t have even to think out of the box. LENR is clearly inside the box.
just have to open ones eyes.
I’m very conservative, but facing thousands of experiments, hundred of peer-reviewed papers across the planet and all kind of organization and industry, across various domain of science, facing the clear behavior of a handful of big corps, and another handful of executive, I just have to SURRENDER TO THE EVIDENCE…
I know that LENR shock theory, but facing evidences, we can sit on theory, especially if like with LENR theory does not disagree with LENR, but just is not mastered beside a very narrow simplified domain…

Joseph

The whole idea of cold fusion is Bullshit.This is a giant scam. If it was true the scientific consensus would be heard. These guys are frauds and quacks aka pseudo scientists. Soon they will be saying homeopathy works.

George Washington

And you know this because ??? or is your knowledge like your comment ,,

AlainCo

what you say is not experimentally validated.

Thomas Kuhn explain whell that no anomaly is accepted until there is a theory.

There are clear experimental results in science, which as Thomas Kuhn explain are conscientiously ignored until a theory is found.

In 1908 scientists said that heavier-than-air flight was Bullshit, only they were more civil in those days and probably used better words. EVERY scientific revolution is opposed by some people, usually dependent thinkers.

If this is true or not it doesn’t matter. The oil baron gas companys don’t want to give up there cash cow. So this will probably be the last time we even hear about it before it is crated up a hiden forever in some warehouse.

Overwhelmingryan

You’re right, but for the wrong reasons. This may be the last time we hear about this, but probably because it’s a hoax.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1020618379 Morgan Burnham

while Rossi may be overselling or lying about what he has, LENR is still real and it is the future. it will just take time. NASA, SRI, STMicroelectronics, Toyota, Mitsubishi and many others all say that LENR is real.

FactsAreFun

So a lot of people who don’t know the first thing about nuclear physics are betting on it? That’s a good reason to bet against it.

But then, you are not a betting man, right?

Roger Bird

nobody, the E-Cat is already out of the bag or at least the LENR is already out of the bag There are just too many people working on it. It is called LENR research and there are international conferences and journals, etc. Mitsubishi, Toyota, SRI, Univ. of Missouri, Elforsk, NASA, etc. etc. etc. are already working on it. They may even find a better method than Rossi.

http://twitter.com/runaway45 delbert aldea

there goes the greedy world

http://www.facebook.com/people/David-Speranza/661187122 David Speranza

If it’s real, welcome to the future.

FactsAreFun

This scam is well over a century old. The only amazing thing about it is, that it still works. What’s next? Nigerian princes asking you to transfer hundreds of millions of dollars to your bank account?

Roger Bird

Prove anything, dip5hi7.

FactsAreFun

I don’t have to do anything. This thing won’t work next year, the year after, a decade from now. I can simply wait and laugh all the way.

http://www.facebook.com/tokinotter.everyday Tokinotter Everyday

haters gonna hate.

http://patrickjproctor.com/ Patrick Proctor

This is a fairly extraordinary claim and I will eagerly wait to see if it is true. There have been numerous claims of cold fusion over the years and they have all turned out to be bunk.

AlainCo

no, there is no debunking since very long (few retraction of partial results at the beginning)… of course mainstream news never talk on success…
Publication in most big journal is forbidden… not all, and naturwissenschaften have a CF section, and a review of LENR in 2010 by edstorms.

Defkalion have leaked (badly, but checked by Gibbs of Forbes, who checke from the tester) a report proving a COP around 3, in bad conditions (temp too low for working well), and tester confirm of having freedom to test all he likes, except the powder (yet he could see it opening the reactor).

SRI tested the experimental reactor of Brillouin.
STMicroelectronics tested the wired of Celani (modest COP, but good calorimetry, and scientifically clear result of LENR).

for those who follow the story it is no extraordinary.
it is long expected, because Rossi is crazy and suspicious like the Wright brothers.

To be honest the test is a little deceiving because one reactor have melted (lack of control) , and the other have a modest COP below 7…

there is no doubt that LENR is the future of energy, but engineering seems still hard… usually this kind of project take 5 years, while inventors always think it will work in 6 month…

FactsAreFun

Bull.

Roger Bird

LiesAreFun, you lie. You are deliberately avoiding looking at the evidence. You are a patho-skeptic, a dependent thinker, a conformist “thinker”. You have not researched anything. You just deny, deny, deny, and then think that people are going to fooled by your lies. Have you no shame, man?

Roger Bird

AlainCo, please write your posts in French in Google Translate, and then post the translation here or elsewhere where you want to post in English. Your English leaves lots to be desired.

AlainCo

I’m sorry , My english is better than Google. I’ve tested.
However I make many typo, mainly because I’m in a hurry… It is getting hot… sorry, I’ll try to read more…

Roger Bird

You are incredibly welcome and appreciated everywhere. Take a deep breath and let it out slowly and know that everything is going to be all right. This time LENR will not be stopped. But you slow down. You might also get up and touch your toes and get a big glass of water. (:->)

Roger Bird

Patrick Proctor, that is a lie. They have not turned out to be bunk. Try Mike McKubre on YouTube.

gclum

We’ve been promised cold fusion for decades now. Its worth a look see but im not holding my breath. However, if true it will change the world.

Roger Bird

You’ve been promised hot fusion for decades now, 58 years to be exact, and they haven’t produced so much as a single watt of excess heat. And yet your tax dollars just keep pouring into hot-fusion “research”. And each year, the prognosis for that excess watt keeps getting farther into the future. In the 1960’s, they promised me excess heat in 35 years. Now they are promising us excess heat in 50 years. Do you notice a trend?

Cold fusion has many reports of excess heat, yet thanks to people like LiesAreFun and other dependent and conformist thinkers, no government money is being spent on Cold fusion. I guess it just isn’t expensive enough for some people.

truthistreason

Take this idea and give it away to the free market. The free market with make it happen whether or not the powers that be want to stop it. This can be in every home and car but the only that will work is to give the tech up for free to everyone to use in their own way.

FactsAreFun

The idea here is to fool suckers into believing that the laws of physics can be bypassed. What’s that worth in the free market? Five to ten in federal prison.

Roger Bird

The particular laws that LiesAreFun is referring to were developed using “tools” (electrons, protons, neutrons and other elementary particles) traveling at close to the speed of light. Since things are known to behave in very strange ways at close to the speed of light and at the subatomic level, this leaves room for a lot of possibility that the so-called laws of physics are a subset.

RGlenCheek

No one is ‘bypassing’ the laws of physics.
When science expands into new territory, there are always dullards who argue against it, saying that the new knowledge violates the old rules.

What they never seem to get is that this is how science expands, grows and comes ever closer to a perfect conceptual model of the universe.
Violating the old rules is how the new rules are made, and how science progresses.

FactsAreFun

Of course nobody is actually bypassing the laws of physics. They merely pretend that they do.

This, of course, is not new “science”. It’s pseudo-science at its best, with a clear component of fraud. You can check for the signs, they are all there.

Real science doesn’t “violate the old rules”. Newton’s laws are just as valid as they were at the time of Newton. Kepler’s laws of planetary motion haven’t been suspended by either quantum mechanics or general relativity. We aren’t using quantum electrodynamics instead of Maxwell’s theory to build radios, because the effects of the new theory don’t kick in measurably until the electroweak scale (and your radio is not quite as powerful as LEP or LHC).

Theories are layers of an onion. As our knowledge of the universe grows, we are discovering ever new layers, extending ever further out in scale, be that in spatial, temporal or energy scales, which are guided by observations that are based on ever refined instrumentation. It is these refined observations that cause scientists to propose additions to the existing frameworks, not chance discoveries that throw out “the old”. Historically such discoveries have never been made.

There are no “refined” observations here. There really aren’t any real observations here. The show is not set up to convince scientists who know nuclear physics. It’s produced to convince naive people who don’t. And if these people also have a paranoid worldview which denies the validity of everything that they can’t immediately grasp in a naive way, the better.

AlainCo

you are exactly in the pathology tha kuhn denounce in “normal science” .
you tale laws are “rules” and not as “explanations”.

fact always respect the law of nature because if they do, you change the laws to match the facts…

My doctor said me that for a healthy person, there is no impossibility nor possibility to overcome you absolute maximum heart rate… if you do, it is that your max rate is higher…

FactsAreFun

Well, since you have it from Kuhn that I am wrong, you won’t mind accepting my proposition.

You invest $10k a month until this technology has delivered a 1GWe reactor. According to some that’s only a few years away. In other words, you invest a couple hundred thousand and you get a million back from a person you really hate. Ultimate punishment for me: not only do I get humiliated out of my mind, you also get to walk away with my money.

On the other hand, if you can’t get yourself to accept this proposition, you are simply full of it.

I have a feeling, it’s the latter.

The laws of nature do, of course, completely agree with me: they are clearly telling me that this is a scam and that the scammers can not afford to take my bet.

:-)

FactsAreFun

One could believe that, if one were to completely disregard the actual history of science and the actual structure of scientific theories.

If one does not, of course, this looks less like a scientific discovery than a made up press release.

AlainCo

moreover I will repeat it a thousand times, there is NO LAW BROKEN WITH LENR !

the only thing that make physicist convinced thing it cannot exist is because they cannot find the way…
LENR respect all basic conservation laws:
– energy, entropy, charges, lightspeed, heisenberg

in fact it seems simply that physicist thing in two-body models…

solid-state physicists never said anything on LENR because they know nothing can be said.

Experiments rules, and since they are sometime positive, this exist.

RGlenCheek

Ummm, Alain, I was agreeing with you.
:/

AlainCo

I was just adding… 8)

You claim that science have to advance by adjusting the theory, reacting to fact. You are right.

I just added that here there is no need (yet) to update theory. Just to update assumptions.

Sorry to talk so loud, so sharp.

No violence, just enthusiasm and tiredness.

RGlenCheek

Since I have your attention, have you read anything about muon-catalyzed fusion?
It is a room temperature form of fusion that was discovered back in the 1950’s and called ‘cold fusion’. There is a Wikipedia article on it that is fairly uncanny in its description resembling todays LENR quite a bit.
My point is, muon-catalyzed fusion exposes the critics lie, that fusion requires high temperatures and pressure and gamma radiation.

kurtis99

scam, plain and simple

Roger Bird

Prove it. Prove that all of those professors, some of whom have very impressive credentials, are lying.

FactsAreFun

Which professors would that be? And what are their credentials in nuclear physics?

kurtis99

are you a fucking tool?

burden of proof lies on the people making extraordenary claims

Roger Bird

But you won’t see the proof if you do not bother to look at it, no matter how good the evidence is. Or you can wait until they start selling them at Home Depot.

AlainCo

Sorry kurtis, you make the extraordinary claim that 180 peer reviewed experiments were faked.

You make extraordinary claim, and probably you know know why, because you never tried to read the data.

Most skeptics simply ignore data after 1989, when they don’t simply repeat like parrot what they don’t understand. the small handful that are both skeptics and informed speak like conspiracy believers and priest against the daemon.

do you have extraordinary evidence to prove a huge international conspiracy, involving government, military, private, educational organization on all continent but Africa and Oceania, while LENR have no funding, no fashion subsidies, and is the best way to be fired, ridiculed, to lose your funding, break your career, be banned to publication in most science journal ?

All I say, unlike what you say, is documented. (on lenr-forum.com ).

Only thomas Kuhn vision explain such a general delusion.

by the way, LENR is not at all extraordinary since the main argument that it is impossible according to QM is deeply flawed, sign of incompetence of plasma physicist in material science :

I quote Yeong E Kim of Purdue :

“I clearly recognized that the conventional nuclear scattering theory at positive energies cannot directly be applied to nuclear reactions involving deuterons bound in a metal, which is a negative-energy bound-state problem. Quantum scattering theory describing the Coulomb barrier problem is applicable to scattering experiments with nuclear beams.When they were being criticized at the APS meeting, I was frustrated that I could not rebuke public criticisms by my nuclear theory colleagues, since I did not have an appropriate alternative theory, even though I realized that their theoretical arguments are premature.”

I can translate that in microelectronic engineer language as :
“QM in lattice , give you so many surprises, that saying impossible is above reason”

kurtis99

tldr

Rossi is a scam.

LENR may have merit thoug. Show me a link to peer reviewed experiment showing similar energy surplus..

or course most experiments were done with PdD electrolysis, with big sigma, yet modest COP.

the recent result using NiH at kW level are made by commercial companies, and guess why they are careful about their IP, and they don’t do science but business. Report about Brillouin reactor done with SRI is preliminary and will not please you, neither the tests of Nelson about Defkalion.

I have no doubt it will never be enough, and sure you will never read seriously, and typically will bump on the first missing comma… always the same with conspiracy theorist or priest.

Anyway you are rational, since you will have no benefit in accepting facts before MIT and Caltech swallow the crow, and rewrite the history as Nassim Nicholas Taleb explain in Antifragile.

in 2015, MIT and Caltech will have invented LENR… for sure.

And you will always be right.

Overwhelmingryan

It’s probably crap.

FactsAreFun

Strike the “probably”.

Roger Bird

LiesAreFun is lying. How does it feel to be immoral? You will find out, LiesAreFun, you will find out.

FactsAreFun

Since when is telling the truth “immoral”? Since it doesn’t suit you?

MisterBlat

As for what the secret sauce is, no one knows — in the research paper, the independent scientists simply refer to it as “unknown additives.”

Party on, my friends: Krivit of New Energy Times has exposed nothing but his bias against
Rossi. Krivit used to be a Rossi supporter, and then something happened and he became an athletic supporter.

Krivit openly believes that LENR is real. So your using him as an
authority is sort of undermining any skepticism concerning Rossi. You
can’t have it both ways. If New Energy Times is correct about Rossi,
then it is correct about LENR. If it is wrong about LENR, then it must
be wrong about Rossi.

Brian Straight

The issues raised in the article are substantial and require answering, no matter what previous stances have been taken. You can often separate science from pseudo-science by looking at the arguments. Science uses quantitative data, pseudo-science focuses on personalities. Until this technology is empirically and independently tested, it’s just a fairy story.

AlainCo

LENr have experiment result.
SRI report prove COP of 2. see ICCF17 .

Defkalion report is loose but condition of freedom are very satisfying, excluding fraud but less error.

Rossi protocol is quite good, yet fraud fears may make impossible to prove anything by anyway… except a sale.

pathoskepticism against LENR match what you describe as pseudo-science. no data, only incorrect psychology.

moreover they don’t even read the data… I know them, I tried to teach them to read. desperate.

Brian Straight

Alain,

Until the experiment is validated completely independently, then the results as presented must be regarded with the highest skepticism. The described review in this article does not even begin to reach the standards demanded by rigorous scientific investigation. The methodology is flawed and therefore the results cannot be trusted.

AlainCo

This fact is not alone. I’m a practical man, and my opinion is not a toy for pleasure, but something to orient my strategy.

Skepticism, even when looking rational, is a comfortable way to stay cowardly out of the game.

Real decision makers need not only to avoid being wrong, they need to avoid missing the good.
They already have priced the option, and it is positive. Visible silence is the eye of the cyclone.

This paper have still few weakness, mostly against accusation of frauds, but no more (DC is the only serious problem, and if probably it can be ruled out, it should be studied)… The ridicule of some accusation let no doubt on the real source of the skepticism : inability to accept change of paradigm…

Some may like to address those fraud theories, but it is hopeless to convince. All important people already have the picture. Some wait, but not all. the rush is started.

This paper is one sheet in a pile of data and evidences.

Color-blind in a see of red flag.

I hope that that story will help the work of Nassim Nicholas Taleb, Thomas Kuhn and Roland Benabou be better known, as they have a predictive value.

Roger Bird

Absolutely, Brian. But you have to do the studying. May I suggest this list:

Elforsk (Swedish for “Electricity Research”) happily admits on their site that they paid for the tests and are happy with the results.

mikewofsey

I saw this last year, I hope it works for them, I do have a question though … their process apparently seeks to exploit Mother Nature’s boundary condition around Iron and nickel where the nuclear binding energy allows decay down to around those two elements because above them the binding force from nucleus to electrons is a bit weaker which allows gradual decomposition of the element. It wasn’t clear what isotope of nickel and iron they used, but they would presumably need to supply something around 8 MeV per nucleon to knock those very stable elements from their stable equilibria. Therefore, it seems that their “secret sauce” should be able to do the same to less stable, heavier elements and produce an measurable increase in radiative heat, where the total heat fromt the calorimeter should equal the sum of the decomposition input, and the background decomposition and the induced decomposition, any additional effects would then be a bonus. Can they show this or have they performed this apparently basic verification?
I have no doubt that there is some tunneling of the nucleons well below 8 MeV, but verification would show this energy for a large portion of the mass, not a tail. Also, have they shielded their setup from background radiation and cosmic rays? We already know that muon-induced fusion can produce measurable output, but obviously they would need to make sure they’re not measuring some spurious effects.
These may be very obvious questions, perhaps even discountable, but without seeing actual energy – mass balances I just have to guess.

Roger Bird

Apparently the Coulomb Barrier is being gotten around. Remember that the Coulomb Barrier is described with “tools” that travel close to the speed of light. So we have Relativity bumping heads with Quantum Physics when developing the Coulomb Barrier law. I believe that this gives us lots of room for getting around the Coulomb Barrier.

FactsAreFun

Special relativity and quantum mechanics form a perfect marriage. It’s called quantum electrodynamics and it is the most precise theory known to science.

What you mean is that general relativity and quantum mechanics are hard to combine. But that’s because of gravity, not because of electromagnetism.

Hmm… looks like someone doesn’t understand physics, after all.

So why won’t you take my bet? I would really love to take your money in perpetuity.

I didn’t know that Forbes was known for the quality of its science reporting. But sometimes cows can fly…

:-)

Roger Bird

Krivit of New Energy Times has exposed nothing but his bias against Rossi. He openly believes that LENR is real. So your using him as an authority is sort of undermining any skepticism concerning Rossi. You can’t have it both ways. If New Energy Times is correct about Rossi, then it is correct about LENR. If it is wrong about LENR, then it must be wrong about Rossi. You can’t have it both ways.

beef

Tits!

http://www.facebook.com/david.dchamp David D’Champ

Let’s hope.

FactsAreFun

Hope doesn’t create heat.

Roger Bird

LiesAreFun, hope does encourage people to experiment. But you forgot about the human element because you are a patho-skeptic. You live alone. You can’t dance. You are a complete loser.

FactsAreFun

These people aren’t experimenting. They are scamming naive folks out of money.

Tatiana Covington

Either it really does work or it does not. True or false. 1 or 0.

mikewofsey

That’s not usually true with these cold fusion experiments. The bigger problem is that so many of them sorta work, due to unexplained reactions (possibly tail-end probabilities with maybe some cosmic-ray muon effects). The field isn’t funded well enough to do real experiments (i.e. in deep salt cavern with controlled conditions) so that they can finally know better what is happening. Thus these electrochemists are doing cold fusion experiments in labs, they get some results and then find them not be reproducable.
What will eventually kill this whole thing is that regular renewable energy (like goethermal, hydro and wind) is starting to get so cheap that eventually nobody will care about “nearly free” energy like this because regular boring energy will be nearly free too.

FactsAreFun

There has never been a single cold fusion experiment that “sorta worked”. There have been plenty that didn’t work, but where the data was misinterpreted either willfully or because of poor scientific data analysis skills.

mikewofsey

That’s not true.

There are three possible explanations for the spurious, non-repeatable results that people have found since the era of Pons and Fleishman. The first is that there is a theoretical probability of quantum tunneling with any reaction and if the researcher is unfortunate enough to measure a compounded tail-end probability that they could potentially measure a tiny anomaly. This one is incredibly unlikely, but the nature of probabilistic mechanics means it can’t be declared impossible.

The second is of a known, established form of room-temperature fusion known as Muon Catalyzed Fusion. Usually, muons are created in the lab to study this reaction with extremely high energies. However there is a natural (very weak) background of cosmic radiation which could conceivably trigger sporadic fusion events which could create tiny, measurable effects. Since the flux of background cosmic particles on the Earth’s surface is dependent on location and time, one person could measure something that someone else might not.

Finally, there is a chance that these LENR folks in Japan have found an aneutronic method of fusion in their electrochemistry. I think this one is the least likely, but I’m a scientist and I see no point in declaring anything impossible without a known mechanism to make that impossible. Since a small modulation around breakeven wouldn’t violate the Second or Third Law of Thermodynamics, nor HUP, then I’m okay with living with the possibility that maybe someone somewhere stumbled onto something.

In a sense, the desire to declare impossible is almost as pathological as the desire to create bad science. As an aside, when I was a young physicist, I toured the Princeton Tokamak Reactor and they had bottles of champagne that they had planned to open as they worked closer and closer to breakeven. Breakeven never happened and that was with a multi-million dollar DOE funded lab. The LENR folks are exploring science on a relative pittance, even if they never reach their goal, I’m sure some other benefits will come from their work.

FactsAreFun

“That’s not true.”

I know all about these effects. Quantum mechanics predicts that tunneling in crystal lattices CAN NOT produce significant reaction rates, certainly nothing that come close to what was claimed by some “positive” experiments. Nobody has ever seen significant fusion events under well characterized conditions with proper nuclear instrumentation and controls. There have been some experiments that have made serious experimental errors that do not stand up to proper review by experienced nuclear physics experimentalists.

Muon catalyzed fusion exists but it has negative net energy production. It takes more energy to produce the muons than can be produced by the fusion reactions under all known thermodynamic conditions. There are no “sorta” results. All measurements on muon catalyzed fusion are of the “nope… did clearly not work” type. The problem is not that it takes very high energy to produce muons. PSI, for instance, is a 590MeV proton cyclotron. By today’s standards, that’s an antiquated a low energy machine. Muons from cosmic rays can, of course, trigger these reactions, but, again, nature had to expend far more energy on creating these muons than is released by the fusion reactions they can catalyze.

“Finally, there is a chance that these LENR folks in Japan have found an aneutronic method of fusion in their electrochemistry.”

That clearly falls under the category of experiment that has not been properly controlled, and that’s not because of funding but because of lack of experience with nuclear physics and calorimetry. A colleague of mine once assembled a precision calorimeter from existing materials in his lab (much of it was duct tape, he loved duct tape!) in his own time and without obtaining any new funding, that was orders of magnitude more sensitive than anything that has been claimed in the literature back then with regards to cold fusion heat release.

It could have detected something on the oder of a nW of heat production. So if you are a “cold fusion researcher”, with the claim that your effect can generate a GWs of power, and you can’t reliably find it, despite the fact that one can cleanly measure heat release that’s 17 (!) orders of magnitude less, then your problem is not cold fusion. Your problem is your total ignorance of high precision experimental techniques.

And that was my point. Cold fusion is not a “sorta” problem. It’s a problem that only attracts cranks and subpar scientists. And for a good reason: the good ones understand why it can’t work and they only want to spend their time on things that do.

mikewofsey

Your key word is “significant,” which suggests that you acknowledge there could be some small, possibly measurable effects. And that was my point initially as well, that some of these experiments may produce spurious results, but you initially suggested that all of these measruements were just due to error. Can you use trace quantum effects to power a toaster? No. Can it possibly be measured with sensitive equipment? Maybe. These LENL folks almost exlusively work on the bench scale.

Muon catalyzed fusion is an example of low-termperature fusion, and yes, more energy is required to run the reaction than it generates because it takes a lot of energy to make high energy particles. But naturally-occuring background radiation muons can also produce spurious “sorta” results. Enough to power a toaster? No. Enough to measure? Maybe.

This statement … “Muons from cosmic rays can, of course, trigger these reactions, but, again, nature had to expend far more energy on creating these muons than is released by the fusion reactions they can catalyze” is of course obvious, that’s pretty much the definition of the Third Law of Thermodynamics. ALL energy-producing reactions are like that, because entropy has to increase for the system. If I get a 10,000 BTUs of energy out of burning a volume of gasoline, then much more solar energy was absorbed into forming the hydrocarbon chain. Same with conventional nuclear fission reactions, the energy that I can extract from a fissionable material has to be less than the energy that the universe expended to create those large elements.

You seem to agree with my claim that these LENL researchers are conducting experiments that don’t have proper controls, as I wrote, they should try to calibrate some of their setups in a salt cavern where they can isolate it from background radiation.

As for the claims of “GW of power”, I agree with you that these are most likely wrong or just outright pathology, because an effect this large should be reporduceable.

It seems we agree on all the major points, but it seems you now ackowledge that there may be some dilute “sorta” effects in these electrochemistry experiments that may not necessarily be fully understood. I agree with you that these are probably not going to become actual power-generation technologies, nor does it seem we even need them, power is getting so cheap that we can just use assorted low-entropy and renewable methods to make it.

Finally, I disagree that LENL only attracts “cranks and subpar scientists.” Yes, many of them are that, and there are some results that simply have to be outright fraud. But I think that these spurious results which you seem to acknowledge may spur a small minority of them on, and they may even increase their understanding of these borderline processes. Compare them to — for instance — string theorists … there you have researchers who create theory which almost definitely has no chance for measurement in our lifetimes. It could be argued that without measurement, it isn’t even science. Yet string theorists are not maligned as you malign the LENL folks. Why?

FactsAreFun

“Your key word is “significant,” which suggests that you acknowledge there could be some small, possibly measurable effects. “

The measurable effects have been measured. We know the reaction rates for muon catalyzed fusion and they agree with the theory. There is therefor nothing extraordinary to “acknowledge”. We understand what is happening, and we have never seen anything that shouldn’t be happening based on fairly trivial theory.

“but you initially suggested that all of these measruements were just due to error.”

None of the experiments which have produced anything than the expected null result (plus the cosmic ray muons induced rates) were well enough controlled to produce a believable result. Look at it this way: even if they have found a real physical effect, the people who made the measurements messed the analysis and controls up to a point where the results are useless.

“These LENL folks almost exlusively work on the bench scale.”

That they work on the bench scale is not the problem. The problem is that the way all the people who claim to have seen something, have worked on the bench scale, was amateurish, at best. To believe in an effect that only shows when an amateur measures it, but disappears every time a gifted experimentalist tries to track it down, is irrational (to put it mildly).

“…is of course obvious, that’s pretty much the definition of the Third Law of Thermodynamics.”

The third law of thermodynamics says that the natural temperature scale is bound from below and that the bound is 0. The second law of thermodynamics is the definition of temperature and the first law is the equivalence of heat and other forms of energy. Neither law, nor any combination thereof, stops muon catalyzed fusion from being net energy positive. It just happens that the muon lifetime is too short by about an order of magnitude to produce a sufficient number of fusion events. At least in the thermodynamic regime of technologically feasible reactor designs (cold solid matter, liquids or high pressure steam), muon catalyzed fusion is simply a loser. There may be a regime in ultra-dense matter, that may work. But since the production of ultra-dense cold matter is not a feasible technological design for a reactor, there are no obvious ways to improve the efficiency significantly.

“but it seems you now ackowledge that there may be some dilute “sorta” effects”

Nope. Why would I? I have seen a highly gifted guy do a precision experiment in the lab next to mine with proper controls. Nada. Zip. Zilch. If there had been a calorimetric effect of even one millionths of what was claimed by Pons and Fleischman, the output of his instrument would have saturated. He saw nothing but the expected noise level.

If there is a magic sauce, everybody who knows about it, must be lying, because nobody with real credibility in experimental physics can recreate any of the claims. Real scientists do not have magic sauces. They will always tell you everything that is needed to reproduce their results, and then some.

“Finally, I disagree that LENL only attracts “cranks and subpar scientists.””

Then you shouldn’t have difficulty to give us a bunch of citations of serious papers written by serious scientists with track record? Preferably papers that actually report a verifiable effect?

“Yet string theorists are not maligned as you malign the LENL folks. Why?”

String theory is not considered science by physicists. It’s considered mathematical physics aka intellectual nonsense aka “it’s not even false”, that hasn’t nearly reached the maturity of proper theory. Me thinks you have serious misconceptions about physics. That’s forgivable, though. String theorists like to write books for laymen that present their craft as something way more important than it is. It probably compensates for their psychological crisis that string theory, even after 40 years, hasn’t delivered a thing, yet. Having said that, string theory is some of the most interesting pure mathematics that we have discovered, and the people who have developed much of it are some of the most gifted mathematicians that have ever lived. But not all mathematics is physics. That’s the very thing that makes physics so utterly fascinating.

AlainCo

any physicist of plasma and particle accelerator think so, and is right in his domain.

In lattice any specialist of superconduction, semiconductors, shut his mouth not to say something stupid that may be replayed later.

LENR seems to require multi-body phenomenons like superconduction or LASER.
Semiconductors took decade to be accepted despite clear evidences, yet no reliability nor theory.
MASER was tested despite opposition of theorist and worked because some theoretical assumption was wrong (perfection).
same for controlled fission that worked only because we forgotten to ask an engineer experienced in control-command (who would have said it will explode despite temperature negative feedback)… and it did not explode because the theory was hopefully false (delayed neutrons).

you exactly fit the locked paradigm that Kuhn talk about.

By the way, I learned the QM in lattice for SC, so… I carefully ignore theoretical point beside the basic law of today :
– 2dn TD law and heisenberg inequality
– mass/energy conservation
– lightspeed as limit of information transfer
– all quantum charge conservation

LENR respect all of that, so abou theory I can safely say that QM theory is not be to changed YET.
If someone make a theorem that LENR cannot exist, then QM is broken.

Science act in that direction, not on the opposite.

yet Kuhn explain well that normal science in crisis, take physics law as mandatory, not explanatory.

thanks for the help.

FactsAreFun

Your rant makes no sense to me, whatsoever, especially, since I have worked in high energy physics and I have a basic understanding of plasma physics. No serious person in either field believes in any of your crap.

I can tell that you are a person with serious physics envy. There is very little we can do for your kind, except to suggest to take four years off and to get, at least, a masters in physics.

you are not the first to send is truth without evidence, sure that there is no doubt allowed….
sorry you are delusional, or at least underinformed.

given what I said, you are simply not reading the data.

FactsAreFun

Hmmm… looks like you have all the “proof” on a .com website.

That should be enough to keep sending me $10,000 a month, shouldn’t it?

:-)

William Gardner

THE SECRET SAUCE THAT WILL SAVE THE WORLD is probably just some sort of Habanero blend.

marvin nubwaxer

“gasoline — which is currently the best fuel readily available to mankind.”
well, that’s just a totally incorrect statement unless it implies that cold fusion will be the next energy source for motor vehicles. gasoline is in no way the the best fuel for anything except cars.

NSFW

The
paper seems more like a press release than a scientific experiment.
Good science is all about reproducible results, but reproducing these
results will be impossible, because of things like:

“The reactor tube is charged with a small amount of hydrogen loaded nickel powder plus some additives.”

“…the reaction is fueled by a mixture of nickel, hydrogen, and a catalyst, which is kept as an industrial trade secret.”

“…modulate power input with an industrial trade secret waveform.”

I only got about 3 pages into the paper before those bits convinced me
that I was wasting my time. Then I skipped to the end, and found this:

“In
the next test experiment which is expected to start in the summer of
2013, and will last about six months, a long term performance of the
E-Cat HT2 will be tested. This test will be crucial for further attempts to unveil the origin of the heat phenomenon observed so far.”
Revealing
the catalyst would also be pretty crucial. If the goal of this project
was to “unveil the origin of the heat phenomenon” the catalyst would
have been described in detail, so that actual scientists could work on reproducing these results.

This almost paper belongs in the The Journal of Irreproducible Results, but it’s not funny enough.

Rating: 1 star out of 5. Would not read again.

Eric Scoles

No, the world wouldn’t change very, very quickly. The world will barely change at all, at least for 10-15 years.

Think it through: How much nickel is there? How complex is the process to manufacture these things? what conditions are required to use it to generate actual electrical power? What other, potentially quite rare, chemicals are required to manufacture or use the device? Who will control the technology’s propagation?

I repeat: The world would barely change at all for quite a while. In a short term, the likely result would be rapid leakage of venture capital from alternative energy.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1020618379 Morgan Burnham

1% of the nickel that is currently mined every year is enough to power the entire world. Basically, there is enough nickel to last us 15,000 years with this tech. Then after that, there is the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, which would last until the end of time.

FactsAreFun

And since it doesn’t work, we won’t need any nickel, at all.

Roger Bird

LiesAreFun, since you don’t know because you stand off telling lies and making pronouncement that you can’t prove, what you have to say is irrelevant. Scientists denied the Wright Brothers until 1908. And you aren’t even a scientist. You are a patho-skeptic.

FactsAreFun

Now all you have to do to become credible, is to prove me wrong.

Good luck with that.

:-)

The Wright brothers, of course, were never told by “science” that they couldn’t fly. Birds had been flying for tens of millions of years, i.e. that flight was possible was well established fact. The story about the Wright brothers is only being told to people of childlike imagination who don’t know that Otto Lilienthal had made over 2000 glider flights between 1891 and 1896. That fact, including the images of Lilienthal’s flights, were very well known to educated people at the time.

In 1908 serious physicists were worried about things like the theory of relativity and early forays into quantum mechanics. Human flight was a technological problem that posed no challenge to science, not even back then.

Roger Bird

The amount of nickel needed is insignificant, less than the American coin of the same name. The only problems may be (1) the nanosize, and (2) the isotope.

RevWubby

“they still don’t know exactly what’s going on inside the sealed steel cylinder reactor”. That line tells you everything you need to know at this point.

Yup – in science its our duty to be skeptical. The easiest person to fool is ourselves.

3dmike

“Basically, hydrogen ions (single
protons) are sucked into a nickel lattice (pictured right); the
nickel’s electrons are forced into the hydrogen to produce neutrons; the
nickel nuclei absorb these neutrons; the neutrons are stripped of their
electrons to become protons; and thus the nickel goes up in atomic
number from 28 to 29, becoming copper.”

Must be physics from another universe. even the drawing is incorrect.

sorry folks, pseudo science.

Roger Bird

What you describe is just one theory. No theory has been proposed that everyone likes.

FactsAreFun

Nope, that’s not “a theory”. It’s a false hypothesis that violates well known physics. In the universe of the sucker, of course, it’s good enough to produce the kind of faith that opens up the purses.

graviton6

the pre-release paper at arXiv:1305.3913. mentions a thermal energy density of 6.81×10^5 Wh/kg (result ’20’ in the paper and mentioned again in the summary).

An energy density of 6.81×10^5 would be roughly 54x the density of gasoline.

where do u see 5.1×10^7 Whr/kg?

FactsAreFun

One made up number is just as good as another made up number.

Roger Bird

LiesAreFun, you are a liar.

FactsAreFun

You can surely prove that.

And if you can’t, you are simply making a fool of yourself. How does that feel?

Very useful and supportive article. I wish I can do all of that in a short period of time.

fusion hopefule

Let’s face it. Everyone who read this article is hoping for a silver bullet. I did. With just a little bit of research, everyone will find that this Rossi guy is convicted felon from a previous scam he committed in Italy. I’m sorry… I want to find the answer just as bad as anyone else does. So far… we are screwed as a planet when it come to energy. There is nothing more important than sustainability. There is nothing independent about the verification process because these so called scientists are cronies he has a long history with already. If this device generates as much power as claimed then the answer is simple… attach it to a steam engine and drive it across the united states and stop only at rest areas to fill up with water. But no… this guy will continue his charades to get more “donations”. Think about it…. if you had an idea that would save the world, why would you let anyone have a financial stake in it. I really hope we find the answer but this guy is just another scam… I’ve been following him since day 1. I want that time back!

AlainCo

As I said before, he is not alone.

he was not convicted of crime, but of breaking an environmental law that did not exist when he started his business. he was innocented because retroactive laws are illegal in italy (and in democracy). He was condemen only of smuggling gold. his defense is tha it was recycled gold, and others may thing it was simply trying to save some money from the bankruptcy caused by the legal change, induced by italia environmentalists and waste mafia.

while pursued he was hired and working DoD… It is true that he was loose and too optimistic that times too, but DoD (having access to the story, which was public) trust him to make a breakthrough in TEG.

note that Petrodragon patents and technology were so much fraud that they were sold for big money, and that few US companies use the same process today. quite efficient for a scam.

patho-skeptics have problems with data.

read the data!

about sustainability you probably don’t know the real efficiency, cost, and pollution of clean energy…

read the data… all is public… especially today in germany.

FactsAreFun

There is no “data”. All there is, is a con script.

Roger Bird

You lie.

FactsAreFun

Nope. I am telling the truth. The truth sometimes hurts. Sorry to have caused you pain, but it is necessary.

fusion hopefule

My degree is in statistics. I think I know a thing or two about the reading data and its reliability. And as far as reading goes… where did you see me write anything about clean energy? READ WHAT I SAID BEFORE USING YOUR “JUMP TO CONCLUSIONS MAT”. Like I said before. If he had a device that was powerful as mentioned he could easily hook it up to either an archaic steam engine or even a sterling engine and prove everyone wrong. I don’t buy into conspiracy theory like patho-gullibles do there Mr. Name Caller. How mature of you. NEXT!

Roger Bird

He was not convicted. So I guess that makes you a liar. And you base these charges on the Italian judicial system. That makes as much sense as trusting a drunken driver.

fusion hopefule

Left field Roger. Left field.

FactsAreFun

Mr. Anthony will soon write an article about the culinary qualities of crow. Either that or he will report about the biodiversity found under rocks.

AlainCo

He should send copy to MIT and Caltech, with a manual about scientific ethic and calorimetry. I trust the to make a meeting to invite Nature and Science for the meal.

Of course it will take few years for the facts to be accepted… few month after first public sale… no evidence is possible to break denial. Moreover if the test show no doubt on the reality, it remind us that Rossi does not control perfectly the reactor…

Innovation take 5 years to the market and it is the 3rd year only.

I dont plan to open the crow restaurant at Austin… if evidence have any importance , LENR would be self-evident. problem is that it is impossible in current paradigm, and that is impossible to break without a new paradigm…
Industrialization is the only paradigm that is strong enough to fight old-physics.

FactsAreFun

????

Either you are part of the con or you are one of the suckers this con is targeting.

Whatever. I don’t care. Have a nice life.

http://www.facebook.com/sunho.lee.7330 Sunho Lee

What these guys should do, if they care about the human race and earth, is put the instructions in some kind encrypted file on bittorrent network and elsewhere…and make several copies of the keys with some trusted lawyers or friends or whatever…that way if something happens to them (say, Exxon has em knocked off) or they cannot get a patent, then the technology will become available to every person on earth instantly.

i mean, i hope they get a patent and become wealthy, but i think we all should hope that one way or the other, this technology is released to the world.

FactsAreFun

What these guys do is a century old scam that targets people who have more naive hopes than they have knowledge about basic science and engineering.

The conman always knows that he is running a con. It’s only the victims who don’t. To ask the conmen to change a well tested strategy is kind of ludicrous. They know what they are doing and they are good at it… but they simply aren’t into developing energy sources. They are developing ways to rob the purses of the naive.

NASA? No, NASA as an organization isn’t. Somebody at NASA, however is. You can always find cranks at any sufficiently large organization. That’s just statistics. That the NASA press office didn’t filter this one, is the only unusual thing here.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1020618379 Morgan Burnham

bahahahaha okay. you’re insane

FactsAreFun

If I am insane, you should take my bet. How about it? How can you lose against an insane guy like me?

Or don’t you care about making a million bucks for free?

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1020618379 Morgan Burnham

sorry money doesn’t motivate me in the slightest. We’re probably really far away from a 1 GW LENR plant. I’d rather just have 10 kw units sold to individuals instead of having huge power plants so that we are not dependant on greedy corporations with monopolies. It’s better to have a single unit that provides heat, hot water, and electricity for the home.

FactsAreFun

If all you want are 10kW of energy generation capability, you can simply invest approx. $50k in solar panels. It’s net energy positive, it’s economical and… it’s powered by a real fusion source! Or invest in a private small scale wind power project (powered by the same source)…

Since electric power lines have been invented, there is no need for the energy source to be in your home. It can be a thousand miles away and it will still do all the things you want from it.

And this is where I grab my head in disbelief about how little rational thought people are putting into energy related topics.

If you stand off and don’t look closely, it would certainly seem to be what you are saying.

FactsAreFun

And if you look more closely, it looks just the same. The patterns of these scams are well known: promises of new science with sheer endless utility, useless “data releases” and “demonstrations”, timelines that keep slipping, more promises, declarations that more money is needed to do the research, “fund-raising”, rinse and repeat. The professionals in this game can play this for decades without “investors” ever becoming tired, or, at least, with tired “investors” being replaced by new victims every few years. The only thing that never happens is that real results surface.

It is, indeed, an art. It’s just not a scientific art.

AlainCo

If you follow what Defkalion have explained, about their work, is that they just read all the huge volume of articles… they interpret most of the papers as things that don’t work, but it lead them to something that work.

I have confidence that a good team of non delusioned engineers can design a LENR reactor in less than 1 year, even if industrialization normally take 4 more years.

FactsAreFun

You should take my bet, then. You invest $120,000 and get $1 million plus interest in return.

What do you have to lose?

:-)

AlainCo

I don’t trust you ethic, nor your solvability.
I prefer my work on linked-in. better option, as taleb says.

FactsAreFun

Well, since you don’t have $10,000 a month in perpetuity, that’s not much of a loss. And I don’t need to have $1 million, to begin with, since I wouldn’t be required to pay out, ever.

;-)

FactsAreFun

I am willing to offer the following bet to the first taker who “supports” this technology:

If you are willing to pay me $10,000 per month from now on until the day the first 1GWe electrical plant based on this cold fusion technology opens, I will repay your money with 10% interest a year, plus a bonus payment of $1 million on the day such a plant goes on the net and delivers 1GWe.

Stop hiding behind a scam and put your money where your mouths are.

Roger Bird

FactsAreFun, are you more interested in being right, or are you more interested in discovery and finding something that has real value.

No one can afford that kind of a bet. But I won’t bet you in any case.

FactsAreFun

I am mostly interested in the truth.

And the truth is, that nobody who makes these kinds of claims will take this bet, because they all know that they are merely scamming people.

If, however, somebody really believes in this, I want them to put their money where their mouths are. I could use a little additional income for my retirement. Because, you see, I would be collecting this money in perpetuity, with no chance to ever having to pay out.

On the other hand, if you think that I am wrong, find me 100 people who will put up $100 a month, each, in perpetuity, against my interest and my $1 milion. You can afford $100 a month, can’t you? It’s not a large sum, and if you really, really, really believe in this, without any doubts, whatsoever, it shouldn’t be a big deal to make such a bet.

On the other hand, if you can’t even get yourself to committing to this little game, maybe your faith in miracles is not nearly as strong as my knowledge of physics? Or, you already know that you will be losing…

But have it your way. I already know the truth.

AlainCo

no need of bets, some do business…
some of those data are public.
if you want to invest, contact the businessmen… it seems they already have investors …

read the data.

FactsAreFun

Hehehe… told you that you wouldn’t take the bet.

I win. You lose.

Roger Bird

LiesAreFun, I want you to know that I did not read a single word of any of your responses. I have known for way too long what people like you are all about. You cling so desperately to your supposed certainty that it becomes perfectly OK to call people crooks even when you have no proof.

FactsAreFun

But I do have proof. Not ONE of ANY of the hundreds (or is it thousands?) of promises of scammers made since the 19th century that they can build a perpetual motion machine or generate free energy has come true.

This one is just another one that won’t come true, either.

As for you reading my responses… they aren’t meant for you but for everyone else. You are taking yourself too seriously.

AlainCo

no link with perpetual motion, and TD laws violation…

LENR is normal energy source, from nuclear potential energy…

probably H+H+H+H and maybe more…

please don’t repeat the strawman…

you did not invent the unethical strawman, but complicity is crime.

FactsAreFun

It is free energy, isn’t it? It’s based on reactions that have been ruled out by proper science. So what’t the difference to perpetual motion? The rebranding? Who cares. Violation of the laws of nature is a violation of the laws of nature. To promise that a technology exists which can do the impossible is fraud. That’s no different from what’s been perpetuated for more than a hundred years in this kind of con.

On the other hand, if you believe in it so strongly, all you have to do to prove your faith is to put up $10k per month. I will take it and admire you for your convictions.

So how about it? Will you take my bet?

AlainCo

NO
it is fact…

interpret it like you want, it is fact…

I suspect it is classic nuclear energy of a fourth kind, after decay, fission, hot fusion… but nature only know what it is.
It works, stop invoking theories.

STOP using straw-man techniques.

crazy to see that you cannot think out of your paradigm…
Me neither. I’m engineer, my paradigm is : Facts, then usage.

It works, make it useful…

FactsAreFun

What is fact? That you are shopping a scam around? Of course that’s a fact.

And why would anybody care what YOU suspect? You have never even done one real physics experiment in your life. Not only that, but you don’t even want to hear the results of correctly executed experiments.

You are like a child that’s throwing a tantrum.

Have a nice life.

AlainCo

Two things to note. First some of the errors that he repeat are simply lies written, and desperately maintain despite evidences on wikipravda.

For example the error about rossi being condemned for fraud is on Wikipedia, despite the established facts.

second is they have already lost.

Businessmen are moving. That it a gold rush.

The article that feign to be balanced critics are just the press that is split between pleasing their delusioned boss, and trying to avoid being called a denialist in 3 month.

Some politician start to set probes.
we have won. we don’t know yet, but we have won.

FactsAreFun

The next time somebody tells you something extraordinary that sounds too good to be true, simply give them a chance to prove it by making a bet with you.

They need to invest serious money on the chance that their claim is true.

You will see, not one of them will take your bet. They know that they are lying and, more importantly, they know that you know.

Every con in the world relies on the conmen being in full control of the situation. Giving up that control by exposing themselves financially and legally (your bet will, of course, go through an attorney who will verify the identity of the conmen), is not an option.

Just look at the Nigerian scam. What, do you think, are the chances, that the Nigerian scammer will agree to send e.g. $100,000 of their own to you, first? None.

And that concludes our short lesson on scams that pretend to be science.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1020618379 Morgan Burnham

You’ll just hide behind anonymity spouting out your pretentious nonsense like every other patho-skeptic. Have you even looked at the evidence? Or looked at the patents that NASA and the US Navy have filed for? You think NASA and the US Navy is scamming us? Are you seriously saying you know better than over a dozen NASA scientists, the CEO of National Instruments, SRI, STMicroelectronics, Toyota, Mitsubishi ??? There are over a dozen companies that started up in the last 2 years all saying they are working on LENR devices. To simply say “LENR is a scam” with all of this evidence is absolutely ludicrous.

FactsAreFun

“You’ll just hide behind anonymity”

Would it be any less of a con job if you knew my name? What would change about the facts?

“Have you even looked at the evidence?”

Of course. I spent most of my life looking at the facts of the physical world. Did you?

“Or looked at the patents that NASA and the US Navy have filed for?”

A patent is a legal document that allows you to sue someone for breach of your IP. It doesn’t guarantee that whatever is in the patent actually works.

“You think NASA and the US Navy is scamming us?”

NASA and the Navy scamming you? No. Do I think that both organizations have a few rather obvious idiots in them? Absolutely.

“Are you seriously saying you know better than over a dozen NASA scientists”

If they believe in crap like this. Yes.

“the CEO of National Instruments”

If he believes in crap like this. Yes.

“SRI, STMicroelectronics, Toyota, Mitsubishi”

If they believe in crap like this. Yes.

“There are over a dozen companies that started up in the last 2 years all saying they are working on LENR devices.”

That’s a dozen places that the DAs should be investigating for criminal activity.

“To simply say “LENR is a scam” with all of this evidence is absolutely ludicrous.”

Not at all. All it takes is a couple decades of experience in real physics. Then it’s plain obvious. Actually, it’s plain obvious for everyone who understands how a scam works.

On the other hand, if you don’t agree with me, nothing stops you from taking my bet. I can use $10,000 per month in perpetuity. But then, we all know that you are chicken.

FactsAreFun

And, by the way, Morgan, since you know the CEO of NI personally, please tell him, that I will make an extra nice offer for him. Since he can afford it, I will double my bet, just for him. You see, getting $20,000 a month in perpetuity is better than getting $10,000.

:-)

AlainCo

serious, send it to Truchard, and put guaranties , because like me he won’t trust you one second to pay…

anyway he will only do that to ridicule you, because what he is doing put much more money on stake than you.

FactsAreFun

That is my whole point. No conmen will ever take the bet. They know that they will lose it.

I wouldn’t mind an introduction to Truchard, though. Personally, I am not in the business of contacting people without being asked, though. Cold calling is not professional business behavior. But since you know him personally… why don’t you ask him about it the next time you are having dinner together?

And if he agrees to the bet, I will have my attorneys draw up the papers for his attorneys and take care of the financials.

Let me know when he is ready to talk about the details!

FactsAreFun

Somebody brought up the question of small scale energy generators for home that work independently of large corporations.

Well, those are called solar panels. They take the energy output of a giant fusion source that has been in the sky for billions of years and that will stay in the sky for billions of years to come.

Solar panel cost is approx. $1/Wpeak as of today. It takes about 5Wpeak for every continuous Watt, so one has to invest approx. $5/Wcont. For a regular single family home, that’s about $10k in panel cost and maybe twice that much for a complete system including installation.

Yes, it is that simple. No need to wait for miracle inventions.

Ed C

It’s always just around the corner. A few years down the road. This is just more of the same hype.

FactsAreFun

See, I told you that nobody is going to take my bet. Conmen never risk their own money in a con.

And that pretty much settles it.

FactsAreFun

Other obvious signs to watch for in pseudo-science cons: mentioning of large organizations (organizations don’t create science, only people do), patents (are legal documents, not science documents), reliance on authority (usually people in large companies that have no actual expertise in the field), rather than data (which the conmen don’t have) and the claim that many pieces of useless “evidence” are proof, that the claims have to be valid (which, of course, is ludicrous, even by high school homework standards).

You know who you are.

FactsAreFun

I do, by the way, fully support everyone who wants to send their money to people who make these kinds of claims.

There is no better way to learn about cons than by falling for them. And that’s why everybody who truly believes in things like cold fusion, should immediately remit their live’s savings to these guys. And please report back to us in a couple of years how it went. I would love to have a good laugh.

FactsAreFun

Also common signs of pseudo-science are comparisons of the research or researcher with famous figures of the past that were supposedly prosecuted or at least ridiculed for their research (Galileo, Einstein, Wright Brothers…check), misuse of “theory” (check), improper use of the laws of thermodynamics (check), paranoia with respect to the establishment, which supposedly blocks new ideas (check).

Am I missing something?

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1020618379 Morgan Burnham

when LENR comes out it will be assholes like you that rewrite history to vindicate themselves. *Fez voice* You son of a bitch!

FactsAreFun

Now that’s just sad, Morgan, that’s just sad.

Have a good life, man, and peace!

FactsAreFun

I am really saddened by the fact that nobody wants to take my offer to pay me $10,000 a month until this technology delivers. I am not even coning you. When I say that you will have to pay this money in perpetuity, I am telling nothing but the truth. But it seems you like lies better than the truth.

Oh, well. Each their own.

:-)

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1020618379 Morgan Burnham

trolllllllllll. no one is gonna give money to a complete stranger let alone a patho-skeptic who probably works in the oil and gas industry

FactsAreFun

You are right. No conmen is ever going to risk being cleaned out himself. That’s not how they work.

But it’s interesting that you are now falling back on paranoid ideas about my identity, to save your little delusion.

Well, some people are being driven insane by the truth. Nothing new here.

So it’s not a nuclear but a chemical reaction, then… hmmm… then all the claims about it being 10,000 times more energetic are total bunk, then.

Well, isn’t that what I said?

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1020618379 Morgan Burnham

I think it’s safe to say it is a type of nuclear reaction? looking at the mitsubishi/toyota experiments they took highly refined non-naturally occurring quantities of specific isotopes as starting material and transmuted them to completely different elements other than the corresponding non-naturally occurring isotopes. this evidence is extremely hard to refute and can be tested over and over after the event to verify the isotopic content.

FactsAreFun

“Isotopic evidence”? You mean the scammers actually care about replacing the working pieces of the experiment between the before and after “measurements”?

I am amazed. And here I thought it was all just made up on paper.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1020618379 Morgan Burnham

hahaha okay now you are calling Toyota and Mitsubishi scammers? who’s the paranoid one now

FactsAreFun

Toyota and Mitsubishi are scientists? I thought they were car brands. Never mind.

:-)

AlainCo

First there are scientist in those labs.
An science is not a bless of god, but a profession.

really you should read Taleb, and learn that real innovation came from tinkerers garage inventors, low level workers, engineers, and not from labs…

history is however clearly rewritten to enforce the mythology that theory helped to make most innovations, which is clearly false. Catastrophes are rather the cause of abuse of theory, though increased fragility cause by dependence on prediction and models.

Please read Antifragile of Taleb.

FactsAreFun

“First there are scientist in those labs.”

Yes, there are. But the good ones don’t do these kinds of experiments and the ones that have done the experiment (or claim that they did) are not good scientists. Judging by the quality of the paper, they aren’t scientists, at all, but third grade lab hands.

Innovation came from tinkerers? You mean, like nuclear energy? That came from mainstream physicists with the funding by the military.

Or semiconductors? Those were discovered by mainstream physicists and developed by large corporations.

Or do you mean the modern steam engine? That was invented by a professional instrument maker working at a university at the time.

Or do you mean antibiotics? Those were discovered and developed by professional scientists.

Or are we talking electricity? That’s a large number of professional scientists, culminating in Faraday, who is considered one of the greatest experimentalists on physics and Maxwell, who collected the known theoretical relationships in a single theoretical framework.

So what, exactly, are we talking about, except for your complete lack of science and technology history knowledge?

Tinker on, my friend, tinker on. You won’t change the world.

AlainCo

NO

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

You live in academic lalaland…

steam engine was a toy in anthic greece invented by tinkererd, and tinkered in europe much later, until some invent thermodynamics… it was then optimised…

but I’m sure that if looking, the optimiser were not academic, but engineers in railways and mines.

read Antifragile of nassim Nicholas taleb

Semiconductors where found by sone scientists, that noticed asymmetric resistance, and rejected for decade because not reproducible.

Transistors finally get produced despite lack of reproducibility, but with just chosing the few % that worked?.

For fission reactor, I don’t know all the detail to debunk all, but clearly it was not a theory driven invention.
Some experimenter found out fission by neutron, then some neutron, and some idea of chain reaction came…
After that they make risky experiments, that turned good by luck (delayed neutrons), by experimental data, and yes by some theory (not much in fact, mostly just past measurements)…

It is funny how when getting deeper on a suject I got two version… the real one where tinkerers try and find and the mythic linear science version, when theory lead to engineering…

Thanks for the help to show how history is rewritten by academics.

FactsAreFun

Hmmm… somebody has a reading comprehension problem, too.

I wrote “MODERN steam engine” for a purpose. Why you would call the greatest scientific minds of antiquity like Archimedes “tinkerers”, I have no idea. Probably because that’s the only way you can defend your position?

“Semiconductors where found by sone scientists, that noticed asymmetric resistance, and rejected for decade because not reproducible.”

Faraday didn’t reject semiconductor properties, he published his results in 1833 in his paper “Experimental Researches in Electricity” . If he had rejected them, he would have remained silent on his discovery. You are wrong, again.

“For fission reactor, I don’t know all the detail to debunk all, but clearly it was not a theory driven invention.”

The first successful fission reactor was built by Fermi in Chicago in 1942. That was only 10 years after the discovery of the neutron and only four years after Lise Meitner, Fritz Strassman and Otto Hahn had shown the possibility of neutron induced fission. Einstein signed his famous letter to Roosevelt about the possibility of nuclear weapons and the grave danger they represented in German hands on August 2 1939. Fermi’s work was conducted as part of the Manhattan Project under intense scrutiny by US authorities and by 1943 the military was operating their own reactors. Or did you think you could just pile up a fissionable pile of Uranium without the US government being behind it, back then???

You don’t know all the detail? Looks like you don’t know ANY of the details.

“It is funny how when getting deeper on a suject I got two version”

Yes, you have two versions: the internet idiot’s version and then you got reality.

:-)

AlainCo

for semiconductors, the real story is around Germanium junction, not easily acceptable NTP as found farady.

the problem is that it was unpredicatble, because linked to contamination, from the manufactured, the way it was handled or stored…

officially it is horowitz in the 40s, and Russel Ohl too in the 30s…

but ther was in the 20s some experimenters who were noticing that, and also big scientist who missed that anomaly because they could not understand it…
Finally Ohl and Horiwitz controlled all…

I cannot even find reference on the net to the ignored losers…
It remind me something. too bad I cannot find again the story…

It have been rewritten

FactsAreFun

“for semiconductors, the real story is around Germanium junction, not easily acceptable NTP as found farady.”

Not so. Crystal detectors with metal-semiconductor junction, today called Schottky diodes, were in use decades before high purity semiconductor materials were made. The reason why they work is the tiny volume in which the effect takes place. Impurities can, even at large concentration, not completely short out the semiconductor junction. Only as the device grows, are materials of high purity required.

And JFets were predicted (and patented) theoretically in 1925, even though technology took another quarter century to catch up to the point where practical devices were feasible. I have even heard that early JFets for research were made from ionic crystals and characterized for their properties, even though technologically sufficient gain could not be achieved. Ohl’s PN junctions came rather late in the game and many patent claims of his group and Bardeen et al were denied because of existing patents by Lilienfield.

In any case, Bell labs never had a practical monopoly on these devices. If anything, they played next to no role in practical economic applications of semiconductor technology. Bell labs is an interesting example of a first rate think tank that has produced numerous inventions which were monetized very poorly.

History is more complicated than your simplistic ideas about it.

“I cannot even find reference on the net to the ignored losers…
It remind me something. too bad I cannot find again the story…

It have been rewritten”

It hasn’t been rewritten. You just need to do a better job using the information.

Much of this is available on Wikipedia. And if you take the time to visit the library of a solid state physics lab, where they have all the journals from the late 1800s and early 1900s, you will even be able to dig up the old papers about all of this stuff and find the names of people who have laid the foundation of modern life.

Be honest… how much time did you spend in the physics section of university libraries? None. Right? So how do you know what’s there and what isn’t? You don’t. All you know is what other’s have written about this stuff. And even that seems to have been greatly distorted in your mind.

FactsAreFun

After reading one of the “papers”, I wouldn’t call either company scammers. But I would suggest to fire some of their incompetent “scientists”. Or, how about a desk near the window?

Semmelweiss died in a psychiatric hospital of the fever he was trying to protect women.
Hagelstein lost funding for Nanor because of MIT friends.
Mallove had to resign, for denouncing a fraud.

Your behavior make me think that you are working in academic context ? Strangely your competences in physics are low… so I’m puzzled.

AlainCo

of course… all is conspiracy… like the magic tweezers…

tell me one experiment, respecting current limit of LENR technology, wher you method to reject any evidence because it is fraud, does not work…

you are a conspiracy theorist, stop playing with serious guys.

Joel Lee

Apparently, rather than trying to fuse hydrogen nuclei to create helium or deuterium, the device seems to be fusing the protons with the electrons to create neutrons, which can presumably use less energy than conventional fusion. That reminds me…
After about 15 minutes, neutrons tend to decay into protons, electrons, and electron-antineutrinos. Perhaps, this cold fusion device attempts to reverse that process, using energy to compress hydrogen, to create a neutron/neutronium, of which is used to transmute the surrounding nickel into copper.
If, indeed, it does produce neutrons, can this design be improved by using Thorium or Uranium to create fissile material? Or, perhaps that IS the secret ingedient, making it a fission-fusion hybrid reactor.

FactsAreFun

Scam devices usually don’t fuse anything. Well, they fuse the money of victims with the wealth of the scam artist, but that doesn’t generate much heat, only lots of outrage.

Only free neutrons decay into protons and electrons. That’s because the mass of the neutron is larger than the mass of the proton and the electron, together. So that means that making neutrons out of protons and electrons requires energy, it’s an endothermal process. It happens a lot in neutron stars, though. But this ain’t a neutron star…

And if you take the time to do the math, the actual processes would have to involve several neutrinos and obey the conservation rules of the electroweak force… the victims, in this case, of course, are not nuclear physicists, but naive people who don’t understand that the process, as claimed, is not possible.

Look at it this way, if the device would have produced this much heat by generating free neutrons, everyone in the room would be dead, or at least dying, by now, because they would have received a deadly dose of radiation. The device and the surrounding area would have been so heavily contaminated that they would have had to evacuate the buildings and bring in a special decontamination team to clean up this mess.

In reality, the radiation in the room never went above background (maybe plus some minor and harmless amount of contamination added by the scammers to pretend that there were elevated radiation levels involved).

Unless, of course, they are working with magic neutrons. Then everything is possible. Once you have magic neutrons and pixie dust, the sky is the limit. But only if people keep funding future “research”, of course.

AlainCo

please stop discussing theories, no theory work, and fact are undeniable. so theories have to be created…

A scientific community cannot practice its trade without some set of espoused beliefs (pp. 4)

These beliefs form the foundation of the “educational initiation that prepares and licenses the student for professional practice” (pp. 5)

The nature of the “rigorous and rigid” preparation helps ensure that these beliefs exert a “deep hold” on the student’s mind. (pp. 5)

Normal science is “predicated on the assumption that the scientific community knows what the world is like” – scientists take great pains to defend that assumption. (pp. 5)

It is the “activity in which most scientists inevitably spend almost all their time” (pp. 5).

It often suppresses fundamental novelties because they are necessarily subversive of its basic commitments. (pp. 5)This paradigm-based research (pp. 25) is “an attempt to force nature into the preformed and relatively inflexible box that the paradigm supplies” (pp. 24).

“Normal-scientific research is directed to the articulation of those phenomena and theories that the paradigm already supplies” (pp. 24).

“One of the things a scientific community acquires with a paradigm is a criterion for choosing problems that, while the paradigm is taken for granted, can be assumed to have solutions” (pp. 37).

The assurance that a research question has an answer is the criterion for selecting it (pp. 37).

“The man who is striving to solve a problem defined by existing knowledge and technique is not just looking around. He knows what he wants to achieve, and he designs his instruments and directs his thoughts accordingly” (pp. 96).

In responding to these crises, scientists generally do not renounce the paradigm that has led them into crisis.

They may lose faith and consider alternatives, but

they generally do not treat anomalies as counterinstances of expected outcomes.

They devise numerous articulations and ad hoc modifications of their theory in order to eliminate any apparent conflict.

Some, unable to tolerate the crisis (and thus unable to live in a world out of joint), leave the profession.

As a rule, persistent and recognized anomaly does not induce crisis (pp. 81).

Failure to achieve the expected solution to a puzzle discredits only the scientist and not the theory (“it is a poor carpenter who blames his tools”).

Science is taught to ensure confirmation-theory.

Science students accept theories on the authority of teacher and text—what alternative do they have, or what competence?

FactsAreFun

“please stop discussing theories”

I am sorry to have hurt your head. But this isn’t much of theory. It’s just trivial experimental facts. Isn’t that what you wanted, facts? And when I give them to you, you are not happy, either?

How comes? Are my facts not good enough for you? Do you have to make up your own?

And what does Kuhn have to do with trivial criminal activity, anyway?

:-)

AlainCo

you don’t even understand that you reject fact because it happens in a way that your theory does not allow…

you are a cowbow expecting flying cows…

FactsAreFun

I reject because it doesn’t happen. The only thing that happens is a scam that’s going for the purses of the naive. But if you think otherwise, you can take my bet and prove your faith for real.

Chicken!

FactsAreFun

What? Still nobody here who wants to prove to me that they are so convinced about the technology that they are willing to pay me $10k a month until it is mature, after which I will pay them back with interest and a $1 million bonus?

Oh, come on, people. That’s a safe bet, isn’t it? This is the technology of the future! This will be HUUUUUUUUUGE! It’s only a few years away! What are you going to lose?

:-)

FactsAreFun

It’s just good that Thomas Kuhn isn’t alive any more. He would be appalled how his ideas are being abused by the fanboys of criminals.

Having said that, Kuhn’s ideas are fairly irrelevant to hard sciences, and especially physics. Physicists have a long history of quickly accepting new evidence and new theoretical explanations. We have, indeed, invented the whole methodology, and we are at least a century ahead of all other science disciplines in our ability to adapt to the amazing variety of phenomena found in nature. And we can very well claim that we are several centuries ahead of philosophy.

AlainCo

AH AH AH

AH AH AH

you live on another planet man…

Are you working in academic…

just read taleb, he explain how even his own ides are already deformed by acamedmics to make the mythology alive…

Of coures Juhn is right…

see how the 5-symmetry was denied, and then bought by the mainstream when it have been theorized.

It is easy for physics to accept facts when it is no more shocking…

Physics only accept fact when the problem is solved.

AH AH AH… It could be funny if you were not the prototype of the physicist trying to rationalize his denial. As said a minister, one is OK, that is when there are many that came the troubles…

FactsAreFun

Of course I live on another planet from you. I am living in the real universe, not lalaland. Did I say otherwise?

:-)

Quasicrystals with five fold symmetry were “denied”? Not in the real universe. Only one year after the beautiful (and highly convincing) paper by Shechtman, his results were taught to undergraduate students in an introductory class on crystallography as the latest research results at my university. I should know… I was there. You, of course, were not.

See, that’s what happens when you go to a real university… the teachers there will introduce you to the best science early on. You don’t have to wait a decade until the politically correct press “declares” that something has been “accepted” by science. That’s all bullshit. Real science gets adopted very quickly by real scientists who actually work in the field. It’s the fools in the public that keep agonizing about stuff that has been bread and butter for years, decades, or, as in case of relativity, for a century, among scientists.

Do you feel foolish now? You should.

AlainCo

evidence that you live in academic lalaland:

(for innocent readers, sit down and take your vomit bag)

http://www.flogen.org/ShechtmanSymposium/
“Imagine yourself making a new scientific discovery and nobody believing you. What would you have done if the most famous double Nobel laureate and head of a big scientific professional society publicly ridiculed you as a quasi-scientist in front of thousands of people in a scientific conference? How would you have behaved if, because of your discovery, the head of your research group fired you for “bringing disgrace” to the team? You would probably have quit university, science, technology and possibly even life.

That’s not what Professor Dan Shechtman did. Probably because he is a materials and metals scientist and engineer! He possesses deep scientific conviction, courage and persistence. He discovered quasi-crystals exactly 30 years ago, in 1982, while fast quenching an aluminum and magnesium alloy. This went against the established scientific knowledge which recognized only crystals and amorphous phases. Nobody believed him and furthermore he was ridiculed. A double Nobel laureate, fought against him for a decade and once ridiculed him in front of thousands of people at a scientific conference by saying: “There are no quasi-crystals, there are only quasi-scientists.” The head of Shechtman’s research group told him to “go back and read the textbook” and then fired him for “bringing disgrace” to the team.
“
thanks for the good exmaple of how History is rewritten by the losers, as Nassim Nicholas Taleb explain in AntiFragile.

Thanks for making my argumentation more alive, you don’t challenge me, you support me.

and i will again, again again repeat that Thomas Kuhn explain that, That Nassim Nicholas Taleb confirm that and get further explaining that academics create nothing new , and steal others creations in history books, that Roland Benabou have a theory for that collective denial, for the violence against dissenters, for silence of the victims…

AlainCo

By the way, Shetchman was… engineer…
ah ah ah ah
to bad, I understand why he dared to fin a 5 symmetry… he was not living in the same paradigm…
His paradigm was… practical.

FactsAreFun

Shechtman is in materials science. That’s considered applied physics (and chemistry), not engineering.

Wow… another misconception… you never seem to be running out of those.

AlainCo

“Probably because he is a materials and metals scientist and engineer!”

read the data

and please no disdain for applied science.

According to Taleb, and to a pile of evidences, academics usually steal the paternity of invention to those lower level species, so at least as long as they are alive we should respect those under-scientist who do the job.

Not a surprise that Fleischmann was also the leading electrochemist of that time, this mean a leading under-scientist. Same for Hans gerischer, for CNAM team, for CEA team, for Fralick at NASA… all underscientist, only able to measure facts and not deduce facts from theories.

If you don’t understand my logorrhea, read Antifragile (and lenr-forum for some LENR specificities). I relay the data. I invent nothing.

FactsAreFun

“and please no disdain for applied science.”

Why would I have a disdain for applied science? I am a physicist, like Shechtman. I even wrote a paper about quasicrystals, myself.

“Not a surprise that Fleischmann was also the leading electrochemist of that time, this mean a leading under-scientist.”

The problem with Fleischman is not his electrochemistry knowledge but his missing nuclear physics knowledge. The two fields have next to nothing in common. After all, you won’t seek the help of a veterinarian specialized on farm animals when in need of a brain surgeon, will you? Brain surgeons will rarely attempt to do a cesarian on a horse and veterinarians will usually not open people’s head. So why do you expect that an electrochemist will get nuclear physics right?

“If you don’t understand my logorrhea, “

I don’t understand your belief in things that are trivial criminal activity.

“I relay the data. I invent nothing.”

You can’t relay data that does not exist. You can, at most, help criminals to spread their con. Honestly, that’s below you. You shouldn’t do these things. For your own sake.

AlainCo

sorry read the data…
and about my english as a foreign language, sorry you are not a physicist, and if you are, change job for the interest of humanity.

and by the way, call your optician

FactsAreFun

What “data”? The fake data of the conmen? Or the useless “data” of the cranks who don’t know how to debug their own experiments? Didn’t you read what I wrote about that?

Your language is fine, it’s your logic that sucks.

See, here you are confronted with a testable fact (whether I am a physicist, or not) and what do you do? You fail to actually check it and you start acting like a child. THERE is your problem.

FactsAreFun

“Imagine yourself making a new scientific discovery and nobody believing you.”

Well, there is a little problem with that statement: it’s simply not true. A year after Shechtman had published his paper, not only did the relevant faculty at my university believe in his discovery, they were actually working on experiments with quasicrystals and on theoretical computer models that could simulate the dynamics of the process by which they form. A few years later we had a good dozen undergrads and grad students working on nothing else.

I know how popular the victimized scientist meme is, but Shechtman’s discovery doesn’t fit the bill. He had immediate support from any number of highly relevant colleagues in the field.

“What would you have done if the most famous double Nobel laureate and head of a big scientific professional society publicly ridiculed you as a quasi-scientist in front of thousands of people in a scientific conference?”

I did what every other physicist with a minimum of knowledge n the field did back then: we had a good laugh about Linus Pauling, who was known to be a huge jackass that was way past his prime. Pauling, by the way, narrowly missed the opportunity to win a third Nobel for the discovery of quasicrystals, himself. He had seen a similar lattice system in an experiment and he had come to the wrong conclusions. Of course he was miffed. Suppressing the correct interpretation of the data in his mind cost him a stellar position in science: being the only individual with three Nobel awards.

“How would you have behaved if, because of your discovery, the head of your research group fired you for “bringing disgrace” to the team?”

I would have done what Shechtman did: go to a place where the boss was a lot smarter.

“You would probably have quit university, science, technology and possibly even life.”

Bull. You meet people who don’t like you everywhere. That’s especially true for idiots who don’t like you for being smarter than they are. If humans would commit suicide in response, half of mankind would be dead tomorrow and we would be an extinct species by the end of the month.

The real problem here is that I was there when quasicrystals were discovered and I actually wrote a paper about them just a few years later. You were not there and neither were the many idiots who write about these things on the internet without having done any research into the actual events. But instead of asking people who know the actual history, internet scribblings make up whatever is on their mind. Which is OK… just mark whatever you write as pure fiction.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1020618379 Morgan Burnham

and there is that pretentiousness and ego I was talking about that has been ruining science for the past few decades

FactsAreFun

Better pretentious and educated than humble and a fool who falls for a con even a twelve year old should be able to figure out. Don’t you think?

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1020618379 Morgan Burnham

I’m educated, just not in physics. but I’m a fast study and guarantee I have a lot more intelligence than you. I’m not yet sold on Rossi, but I do believe LENR is real. So if you’re so educated get in touch with these guys and tell them what they are doing wrong so they can try to prove Rossi as a scammer. The team that wrote this paper want the truth, period.

FactsAreFun

“I’m educated, just not in physics.”

I am also educated, just not in brain surgery. OOOOPS! I am not talking about brain surgery. Never have, never will. See, there is the difference between the two of us: I know where my expertise ends and I leave the things that I can’t do to the specialist.

“but I’m a fast study”

I am a fast study, too, and it took me ten years full time to learn half of this shit and to develop a reasonable intuition. Say, how much time did you spend on it, FULL TIME?

“and guarantee I have a lot more intelligence than you”

Shouldn’t that intelligence of yours have shown, by now? OK. Question: which particles mediate the electroweak force and why are they important for the kinds of processes we are talking about here?

“but I do believe LENR is real”

Billions of people believe in talking snakes, burning bushes and virgin births. So what? That’s religion, not science. Either you have real evidence, backed by quality research, or you don’t. I don’t care about the church of LENR.

“So if you’re so educated get in touch with these guys and tell them what they are doing wrong”

They aren’t doing anything wrong. They are achieving all of their objectives: to lure people in who don’t have the intellectual capacity to identify a trivial con. Why would I tell a conman how to do his work when I can clearly tell that they are very good at their craft? You aren’t making any sense, here. I am also not in the business of flying to Nigeria to confront the Nigerian spammers.

“The team that wrote this paper want the truth, period.”

And this is where I grab my head again and ask “Are you for real?”

:-)

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1020618379 Morgan Burnham

hmmm.. photons, and the w and z bosons? the importance I’m not too sure about

FactsAreFun

Very good.

I can rephrase the question about the importance in the following way:

What are the conserved quantities in electroweak interactions?

How is knowing the conserved quantities useful to determine possible and impossible (or, at least highly unlikely) nuclear reactions?

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1020618379 Morgan Burnham

p.s. if you really wanna talk to the ‘delusional belivers’ they are all over here – http://www.e-catworld.com/ go share your wisdom there.

FactsAreFun

Why would I spend time on the sites where the conmen operate?

I also don’t go to Nigeria to preach to the Nigerian scam operators. You are not making any sense, Morgan.

This is just for fun. If you want someone to take on the criminals, ask the DA. That’s his job. It is, by the way, not even a criminal offense to produce fiction all day long without marking it as such. The criminal activity happens when money changes hands as a result of false representation, which is extremely difficult to prove, because most victims won’t talk out of shame of having been taken to the cleaners.

You mean, you don’t know how this works? But you pretend to know how nuclear physics works?

:-)

Jess H.

I ask you this then: Why are you hiding behind a pseudonym while attacking this? Granted, I believe you are right and it needs to have rigorous testing done, but when you hide behind a nome de plume you reduce your posts to simple internet trolling.

Offer a million dollars? Sure! No one can find me anyways if I’m wrong. Spout derisive accusations without stating your own credentials? Ok! No one can find me!

If you are a scientist, you would have no compulsion against revealing yourself so the community can take your constructive questions and move forward instead of this school yard back and forth of “IS NOT! IS TOO!”

FactsAreFun

“Why are you hiding behind a pseudonym while attacking this? “

Because it doesn’t matter to physics who I am. Physics is all the same, no matter who talks about it and what kind of names they are using.

“Granted, I believe you are right and it needs to have rigorous testing done, but when you hide behind a nome de plume you reduce your posts to simple internet trolling.”

Would you believe me more knowing my name, but without checking the things I say? One always has to check facts. Relying on authority/name is never a good idea. But if you have to check facts, anyway, you may as well do it without my name. And, obviously, I am not trying to become famous over here.

“Offer a million dollars? Sure! No one can find me anyways if I’m wrong.”

True. You couldn’t find me, but you could find my attorneys and they would have the money in escrow for you.

It’s not that simple, of course. First, you would have to convince me that you are a person of significant wealth who can easily absorb the loss. Next, you would have to prove to me, that you are of considerable intelligence. I am not a conman. I am not going to take money from the next best fool. Where is the satisfaction in that? I would try for a very long time to talk you out of the deal. And maybe then, if you are still in it for the fun of it, maybe then I could convince myself that it would be ethical to take your money for real.

“Spout derisive accusations without stating your own credentials?”

My credentials can’t change the truth. If it’s true, it’s true whether I am a girl, a boy or a turtle. And then turtle will eat crow. But if it’s not….

“If you are a scientist, you would have no compulsion against revealing yourself”

Being a scientist doesn’t require being a public person. It only requires sticking to facts. There is no statement in the scientific method that asks for putting your signature under a scientific statement.

It doesn’t say “F=m*a as testified by the honorable Isaac Newton.”. It simply says “F=m*a”. As a physicist I care nothing about the fact that Newton was also very interested in alchemy and the occult. I simply ignore all of the crap he wrote about those things, because none of that is true. Instead, I focus on the things that he got right. AFTER checking them, of course. Physicists, to this day, keep checking the deeper ideas that lie behind Newton’s insights. We haven’t stopped asking questions about them, ever, just because they came from Mr. Newton.

Having said that, I am not a Newton and I don’t pretend to be one. I am merely a person who tries to point out to the scientifically less versed that there are signs of some unsavory business here. I don’t take money for that. I am not asking for your gratitude. It’s a take it or leave it offer. Don’t want to listen? Go your way, maybe even invest in one of these “inventions”. You know where to send your money. It’s not to me.

Now, talking about the business end of science: it’s reproducibility. If nobody else can reproduce your claims, they aren’t worth squat. If you don’t document your claims properly, they aren’t worth squat. If you haven’t done the minimal amount of consistency checking yourself, they aren’t worth squat.

If you can show me a cold fusion paper which describes a reproducible experiment, and that paper has all of these ingredients, then we can talk beyond the kindergarten level. So far, I haven’t seen such a paper by those who support cold fusion.

FactsAreFun

Let me ask you this: What appeals to you on these kinds of “reports”? Do you actually check the scientific quality, or do you treat one of these press releases like the ones from e.g. CERN?

Jess H.

I am not a physicist. I am not a scholar. I am a typical blue-collared worker. I read the article and then went through the comments. Anyone who has used the internet for a reasonable period of time can attest, you take everything your read there with a grain of salt.

However, It doesn’t take fancy letters behind my name to see that you are enjoying the attack and riposte of this comment section and keeping your anonymity. This fact along forces me to relegate you to “heckler” and place your previous and future comments in the “Ignore” pile. Thanks for playing!

FactsAreFun

The freedom to speak my mind, even in cruel and degrading form, is the only reason why I am here. It is a selfish form of “fun”, if you like.

Would you prefer a different reason? Or just a different form? I can’t deliver on the first and I don’t want to deliver on the second. Like I said, it’s a take it, or leave it.

And having said that, none of it matters for the only real question at hand: “Is cold fusion possible?”

The answer, using real physics, is affirmative, and real physicists have done the corresponding experiments decades ago. But cold fusion the way these people are claiming, is not possible.

So, blue-collar worker (we are colleagues in that profession, since I am experimentalist), what do you gain from ignoring my answer?

Nothing. You merely avoid the hard work of separating the message from the messenger.

FactsAreFun

So I take it you are also chicken to take my million dollar bet?

Surprise!

FactsAreFun

Can somebody tell me why the Mitsubishi experiment hasn’t done a control for the initial Pr content of their sample? And why do they not publish spectrometer calibration data? Did they check the logs for what kinds of samples were processed in the facility before they stuck their own samples in there? Why did they not publish the spectrometry results of the H2 runs? The say that no Pr was observed, so why do they not give us the numerical results? They obviously had great trouble reproducing the conditions in their experiments (they even seem to have run out if working gases during the experiment… really????).

The way the paper is written, with no discussion of limits and controls of their analytic techniques, the authors wouldn’t even have passed an experimental physics class. You can’t just publish a result without giving a baseline before and after the actual measurement to exclude contamination…

See… and this is exactly why no real scientist can take these things seriously. The people making these claims are not even sub-par.

FactsAreFun

Looking at the neutron activation data in the experiment, again, I do not see a quantitative fit to the Pr peak. How many sigma above noise is it? It does not look very convincing, certainly not in the second measurement. There is also no discussion of the absolute size of the peak, if it is real, to begin with. How large a peak would be commensurate with the results of the mass spectrometer data? Are the two measurements agreeing about the absolute and relative amounts of Pr generated? They authors don’t tell us. It’s not even clear that this question even crossed their mind.

What are the chances that the observed Pr was generated by the neutron activation? Did they check for all possible nuclear reactions that could have created the Pr from existing contaminants? If they did, why don’t they tabulate them with statistical and systematic error bars?

And why do they not show us the neutron activation data for an unprocessed sample? No controls, again????

Failing even the most basic requirements for precision analytics, they are very quick to formulate a hypothesis about nuclear transmutation, though. Why should we trust their ideas about nuclear physics, when we can’t even trust their analytic skills?

Anybody have an answer to that?

andrewi

Dude, this is the internet. Nobody understands WTF you are talking about. We’re all just waiting for the energy companies to jump on this like a cat on a ball of wool because it might hurt their margins.

Take you crap to the PhDs if you want, you’ll get nothing. It is an experiment but the paper isn’t complete because if it was then everyone on the planet would be making one right now.
The guy (understandably) doesnt want everyone understanding and thus stealing his shit,

but if he has a tube,
and in goes hydrogen or nickel or whatever,
and out comes a shit-ton of electricity,
and it’s more than a gasoline generator could make,
and it’s not radioactive.

then good sir, that shit is good enough for me!

FactsAreFun

“Nobody understands WTF you are talking about. “

What is there not to understand about a scam? A person with a criminal mind makes up something that is attractive to people with weak minds. He takes their money. End of story. Do you understand that?

:-)

“It is an experiment..”

Nope. It’s not an experiment. It is a tale about an experiment that is meant to impress the weak minded. If it had been a properly documented experiment, you and I and thousands of other people could easily replicate the results. Call me, if you can.

And of course I can steal his “technology”. Or do you really think I couldn’t fake a perpetual motion machine or a “free energy” device in a way that wouldn’t fool plenty of people, including you? The recipes for that are perfectly well known and I could easily invent new ones of my own. The con scripts are also very well documented. The only thing that keeps me and most people from doing these things is that we are not criminals. Sue me for being an honest person.

He has a tube.
In goes whatever, plus a ton of energy.
Out comes the exact same amount of energy.
That’s no different from a gasoline engine. Energy in = energy out.
And it’s not radioactive because he wants to fool people, not kill himself.

Is that good enough for you? No? That’s because the main part of the con is not what you see, but the imagination in your head. Without that, there is only a wannabe criminal with a silly tube.

FactsAreFun

The more I am looking at this “paper”, the more I am surprised how people can call this trash “science”. That’s not science. Science is the diligent and careful design and execution of experiments, taking ALL known error sources into account and using all possible controls and sanity checks to guard against experimental errors.

In other words: science is hard work. It is pretty obvious that the authors of this paper are neither diligent or careful, and they do, for sure, not cherish the hard work that is called experimental physics.

FactsAreFun

Where are the fanboys? Nobody wants to defend the trashy Pr “transmogrification” paper? Really?

Oh, come on, guys. Is that the best you got? You are making outrageous claims about the discovery of some Schmutz by people who operate like third rate lab technicians and you won’t even defend your “heroes”?

Where is your guts? In the pseuso-science gutter?

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1020618379 Morgan Burnham

I don’t think anyone is paying attention to this page anymore. your annoying comments ran them all off

FactsAreFun

So you are annoyed by somebody expecting QUALITY?

Glad I am not living in your world of crap.

Have a nice life.

FactsAreFun

If it looks line a con, and it feels like a con, it is a con. If your mother never taught you that, you are walking trough life with a serious disadvantage.

AlainCo

assuming LENR is real and industrial, and given the known limts of today LENr technology (COP6, IP protection) , what would convince you enough…

that report is already the answers to many other critics… about flow calorimetry, electricity, control…

you are like a prisoner in the death row, facing his last meal (a roasted crow), and refusing the plate for any incredible reason, just to gain time before the cooking.

FactsAreFun

“Assuming” it is real?

Hmm… somebody is changing tune at the speed of a chicken running for its life now.

:-)

It isn’t real. I am willing to pay a million bucks in case I am wrong. And you aren’t even willing to take that bet.

Chicken!

FactsAreFun

Blogs are a wonderful source of proof that it’s people without any understanding of science who believe religiously in cons like free energy and cold fusion. Those are exactly the kind these conmen are looking for.

See below.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1020618379 Morgan Burnham

or, the largest industry in the history of humankind (oil) is simply trying to restrict their competition, like literally every corporation in the entire world currently does.

FactsAreFun

I am not a physician, so I can’t prescribe clozapine.
But if you want to understand physics, I can help.

By a careful search for fools. And boy, did I find the mother load. Do you disagree?

Eric Schell

Some many fools, and you used a link. Call the kettle black much?

FactsAreFun

No. But sometimes I call the cattle lacking a sense of humor. Does that shoe fit?

You do know why I don’t click on links in blogs, right?

Eric Schell

Fear of the unknown. You do know you can’t link to apps on Facebook?

FactsAreFun

No, I don’t know that. Unless you are one of the designers and coders of Facebook, neither do you… OTOH, if you do know, that means you are one of the designers or coders of Facebook and then you can probably do on the site whatever you wish. In either case it wouldn’t be rational to take your invitation. I hope that’s logical enough explanation for why I don’t click on the links of strangers?

And, you see, in general I don’t know anything much about Facebook. And that’s why I don’t comment on Facebook technology and I don’t take chances on Facebook links.

I do know a little bit about physics, though, which is why I comment on physics and which is why I can take the chance of offering a million dollar bet against this con. I would not suggest that someone, who does not know at least as much as I do about physics, try the same on another science news item. It might become a very costly experience. I would not, for instance, offer a similar bet on some real science coming from CERN.

Does that strike you as particularly fearful, to offer a million dollars to a stranger? The thing is, I don’t have to fear the unknown here. I know what’s going on and so does every other physicist who is familiar with these cons.

FactsAreFun

I have to revise my previous statement. The core group of con victims in this case not only lacks an understanding of science, they also seem to be paranoid human beings.

It’s quite sad, actually, that those who are so afraid of invisible conspiracies, are the ones who are being fooled by an all too obvious one.

Sometimes life just sucks, especially for the victims.

Brian Straight

Roger,

Thank you for the links. I will certainly look at them.

Best,

Brian

FactsAreFun

Let us know when you get to the section where they talk about the pixie dust and the Moon fairy.

;-)

FactsAreFun

The human psyche is truly astonishing. It will readily believe any nonsense, as long as it’s wrapped in hope, but it will reject all voice of reason that it doesn’t like, no matter the facts.

LibertyDwells

Of course your definition of “reason” is any knee-jerk negative reaction to what you don’t like, disagree with or don’t understand. People like you were denying powered flight was possible long after it was common. There are still people like you denying we made it to the moon.

Now whether THIS is legit or not remains an unknown. I have my doubts. But your sort of emotion-based, logic free reaction would have people cease to even try or hope and that is far more corrupt than any potential scammer.

FactsAreFun

“Of course your definition of “reason” is any knee-jerk…”

Knee-jerk as in

“Bold claims require bold evidence.”

“If it sounds too good to be true, it is.”

“A sucker is born every second.”

That kind? There is nothing wrong with skepticism. Skepticism brought you the modern world. Without it, you would still be sitting in a cave.

“People like you were denying powered flight was possible long after it was common.”

We were? You can surely send us the citations of peer reviewed science papers arguing that powered flight was impossible? Author, date, name of paper, name of Journal, please.

:-)

“There are still people like you denying we made it to the moon.”

Why would I claim such a nonsense? I worked in the same building with a person who was analyzing moon rocks. I talked to him many times over tea. Strawman fireworks?

“Now whether THIS is legit or not remains an unknown.”

Not at all. I already know, because I can see all the signs of fraud. That’s why I am willing to bet a million bucks against it. Are you willing to bet $10k per month in favor of it?

“would have people cease to even try or hope”

Hope for what? Cheap, radiation free fusion energy? I have that on my roof. It’s called a solar panel.

FactsAreFun

Nickel has a specific heat of 0.44kJ/KgK. So at a power density of 4.4×105 W/kg the metal will heat up at a rate of about 1000K/s. Given that it has a melting temperature of slightly over 1700K, it should start melting after about 1.5s… if we neglect radiative cooling. Am I getting this wrong? Since it doesn’t, we have to assume that the heat dissipates by (mostly?) radiative cooling.

They claim a temperature of about 1130K, right? If I can trust my Stefan-Boltzman calculation, that’s about 86kW/m^2 in radiation. So that indicates a tube with approx. 86kW/m^2/440kW/kg= 0.2kg/m^2 area density. The density of the metal is about 8.9g/cm^3, which would point to a thickness of the active region of about 0.2kg/m^2/8900kg/m^3=0.022mm.

Somebody wants to check that?

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1020618379 Morgan Burnham

oh cool you’re starting to help the rest of us look at this subjectively instead of just assuming it’s all bullshit !! on this test yes the temp was around 1130K but it was reported previously by Rossi that he’s seen stable temps close to 1500K

FactsAreFun

But Morgan, I am not here to do YOUR job. YOU are the fanboy, YOU need to do this kind of homework.

I am just showing you what a real physicist does when confronted with something like this: we are doing back of the envelopes. Where are yours?

“Well the technical stuff is way over my head but I’m slowly figuring it out.”

So have you gotten to the point, yet, where you can calculate non-relativistic tunneling through a Coulomb barrier, yet? That’s probably 80 year old stuff, by now.

Anything that was published in newenergytimes.com is bullshit. Got something peer reviewed that was published in a quality science journal?

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1020618379 Morgan Burnham

that’s the same copy that was published in a science journal, though I can’t find any other link to it. I’ll ask larsen where I can get a copy that is not from newenergytimes.com (I agree with you on that point)

Larsen’s presentations are typical scammer language. Scientists don’t write like that. Neither do CEOs of companies with honest business models. There is no credibility there.

Got anything better? I am still looking for real science. I really don’t care about the cons all over the internet.

kdk

Yeah lol, because we’re talking about the strong force here… oh wait, you can’t … oh what’s a theory and how do I read before I write?? Still trying to think… no gamma rays… we’re still talking about that stuff I know about right? Or is it over my head too??

Are you talking about Tokamak?? Because the cost of a piece of machinery for a day there would fund a study that could start to tell us why there’s a bunch of non-chemical heat happening in all of these reactions. Thankfully, I don’t need a degree to know that lack of theory doesn’t disprove emperical results… especially the favorite strawman theory that gets your panties wadded up. lol, scientist my arse. You must suck at it. Or you should spice it up with a course in logic.

I always leaned on the fence towards Rossi being a fraud

And it’s totally obvious that if it were real, they would write papers in journals that shred papers that have the slightest hint of anything relating to pons and fleischman. Cuz like, why don’ t they go raid these journals and force their papers in? It shows a lack of resolve, and because the Journal Kings are infallible, Your Journal Editor worship is dumb… go read books about what instead pretending to be able to figure things out

Dude, there’s an angry ghost in the machine, upset at pons and fleishman that causing the heat and explosions… no no, all of them are frauds successfully tricking their investors!!! These corrobarating results that they get only show just how nefarious these scam artists are, and their genius as conspirators which we must be ever vigilant in guarding the knowledge of… way back it must have been the heathen Copernicus… no,no everybody agreed with him when he wrote it.

Don’t overthink it. I can’t describe it, it doesn’t exist mmmkay?

FactsAreFun

“Yeah lol, because we’re talking about the strong force here…”

Nope. We would be talking about the electroweak force in this case. At most, we would be talking about residual thermodynamic forces based on the strong force, like in a quark gluon plasma.

“Still trying to think… no gamma rays… we’re still talking about that stuff I know about right? Or is it over my head too??”

Is it over your head? If is its, then only because you didn’t take the time to think about it. So why didn’t you? Too hard?

“Are you talking about Tokamak?? Because the cost of a piece of machinery for a day there would fund a study that could start to tell us why”

No amount of money will tell you anything about things that are only happening in your mind. Right now, your mind is very angry about having to defend a con.

“there’s a bunch of non-chemical heat happening in all of these reactions.”

How do you know that? Did you find signatures of nuclear reactions, like radiation?

“Thankfully, I don’t need a degree to know that lack of theory doesn’t disprove emperical results…”

Of course not. But you also don’t need a degree to understand that there are no empirical results here because the whole thing is made up. Didn’t your parents teach you how to identify a con?

“lol, scientist my arse. You must suck at it.”

I do. Relative to others, for sure. But what does that have to do with this being a con?

“And it’s totally obvious that if it were real, they would write papers in journals that shred papers that have the slightest hint of anything relating to pons and fleischmann.”

The experiment of Pons and Fleischmann has been repeated many times by people who know this stuff. Nada. If you believe in evidence, there it is. This one you can’t even repeat, because they are not showing you what’s inside. So threre is zip verified evidence here.

You don’t have to. If you write a quality paper, a good journal will publish it. The problem is… these folks aren’t writing good papers. They don’t have to. Science journals are not their audience. They are only talking to preselected “investors”.

“Dude, there’s an angry ghost in the machine, upset at pons and fleischmann,”

Not in the machine, but in your mind. I can’t exorcize that.

“that’s causing the heat and explosions… no no, all of them are frauds successfully tricking their investors!!!”

Pons and Fleischman weren’t, to the best of my knowledge. They were scientists who made a number of serious experimental mistakes and who drank their own cool-aid. Happens all the time in science. Happens to me, a lot. But what most scientists do is to ask a colleague, first, to tell them what’s wrong with what they did. And then they ask another one. And if a dozen colleagues all say “Wow, guy, you got something really great, here! Go publish!”, then we publish. Pons and Fleischman were told by colleagues that they were wrong and why. They didn’t listen. That’s human, it’s tragic, but it doesn’t change physics.

“These corroborating results that they get”

What results? Pons and Fleischmann’s? That was a null experiment.

“Just remember, if you don’t look, it’s not there.”

I am looking, and clearly, the con is there.

Guest

on this test yes the temp was around 1130K but it was reported previously by Rossi that he’s seen stable temps close to 1500K

FactsAreFun

The temperature can not be a constant. It has to depend on the reaction rate, which is a matter of gas flow. One wonders why so high? Why endanger the experiment when a temperature rise of a hundred degrees would have been completely sufficient and would have allowed precision calorimetry? Show effects, anyone?

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1020618379 Morgan Burnham

I don’t think they have that much control over it just yet, seeing as the first one melted.

FactsAreFun

Why would you not have control over a gas flow? This ain’t a runaway nuclear reaction like in a fission reactor. And even if they couldn’t limit the power output: how hard would it have been to add water cooling to a pipe? You put another pipe with a water mantle around it. The temperature rise would have been orders of magnitude less and you could have done precision calorimetry at the same time. Moreover, you would have been much closer to a practical reactor design… isn’t that what they should be working on???

It’s generally much better for the scam, though, to keep destroying the apparata. First of all, the evidence is gone (the experiment is not repeatable), secondly, they can ask for new money and time to rebuild. Rinse, repeat. That’s how it’s been played.

Classic! You have to give it to these guys: they know how to play the suckers. And the suckers aren’t asking even one of the relevant questions… like… where is your flow calorimeter?

This is fun!

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1020618379 Morgan Burnham

Rossi never asked for money from anyone. He went to an “undisclosed US company” and they bought his device and all IP. He’s not trying to get money from anyone at this point he already has it I guess. One of Rossis competetors, Brillouin, is building a device like you described I believe – http://www.brillouinenergy.com/

FactsAreFun

Bull. Of course they are asking for money. The “undisclosed US company” has “investors”. Those are the ones that are being shaken down.

AlainCo

this is what was done before and pathoskeptics like you moaned it was not enough and asked for IR thermometry and higher power…

you look like a turkey in the deathrow, installed on the table for the last meal… and you try to gain few minutes by moaning that the meal is faulty… Are you waiting for thanksgiving to be over ?

It look like my 3 years old daughter…
I propose a dress, she ask a trousers, I bring a trouser, she ask dress, I gring the dress… no a trouser… then too dark, too clear… not the pink, but the orange… finally not the orange but a dark dress…

strategy is clear. It remind me 9/11 conspiracy theories.

FactsAreFun

“this is what was done before and pathoskeptics like you moaned it was not enough and asked for IR thermometry and higher power…”

Yawn. I didn’t ask for any of that, ever. Strawman burning! In science you do precision experiments, not fireworks. You only need fireworks for people who can’t be impressed by proper experimental controls, i.e. suckers.

And, yes, you do remind me of someone who is used to talking to three year olds, rather than someone who is in touch with adults.

Have a nice life.

Keef Wivaneff

Why don’t you just FUCK OFF you cretin?

http://twitter.com/Sethmiesters Seth

Ummmmm…….. no. The article does have a pretty picture. Nothing to see here. Move along.

hokmah

We Rossi fanboys goes with the saying of Albert Einstein
“I’d rather be an optimist and a fool than a pessimist and right.”

If this is a fraud then we get over it and move along.

But I see much of the skeptics here are so attached to what
are known and generally accepted physics laws and theories.
I hope the skeptics will not kill themselves in shame if Rossi is proven
right, maybe just make a lot of excuses. If they are right then
we all move along and build a better hot fusion machine costing
billions of dollars.

FactsAreFun

This is a fraud. Get over it. I am offering you a one million dollar bet, if you want to bet on Rossi, though. My million with interest against your $10,000 per month until Rossi delivers a 1GWe power plant based on this “technology”.

hokmah

And he’s back, and this is exactly what I am telling on my first post,
too much attachment.
Fraud or not, no problem, he did not get our money.
Anyway I don’t gamble and Rossi don’t have a 1GWe power plant, only 1 MW plant (check your facts, it’s not fun).

FactsAreFun

You are not a gambling person?

Yeah, right. You are a chicken, just smart enough to know that it’s walking on the butcher’s block.

:-)

Amelius Brown

So how does this process get around the fact that adding a nucleon to nickel requires a net energy input, rather than giving off energy?

Alain….I’ve met a few STUPID TWATS in my time but you are a world class FUCKING IDIOT!

macuy

From 90% bogus to 50/50. 50% to be true, 50% a hoax. He has dragged this for over 2 years when on any given day he could have changed the world but instead just gave excuses.

FactsAreFun

This was 100% bogus two years ago and ten years ago and 100 years ago. It will stay 100% bogus till the end of times.

Scott Thayer

This is life and death for some people! Look at the guy in Columbus Ohio who was killed for running his dunebuggy on water. Lots of people get killed inventing new energy..

FactsAreFun

He got killed? By his dune-buggy? Or did he mistake the gasoline in the tank for water and drank that? Such an idiot.

andyrwebman

Interesting, though I remain to a degree sceptical. I also wonder how long it would be before the supply of Nickel ran out – it isn’t a catalyst in this case, it’s part of the fuel.

Unless they could replace it with a much more abundant element – or the amount of Nickel used is extremely small – this might be impractical even if it’s physically possible.

AlainCo

from old claims of rossi and defkalion, assuming all the nickel is consumed (few grams, few kW, one year), I have computed that all world energy, from electricity generated from LENR at 33% conversion, can be made with few % of current planet nickel production.
Nickel is one of the most common element on earth.

Cost of few if nickel is negligible, and only real cost is the reactor construction, which lead to probably a division by 10 of energy cost, assuming turbine cost is reduced. Turbines cost is the real problem, since today it will be many time more expensive than the matching reactor.

In fact from other claims, like brillouin, and some recent hint by Defkalion and Rossi, it seems probable that nickel is not consumed, but damaged by the reaction… it seems a H+H+H+H->He4 reaction, or maybe toward heavier elements (Li, Be, B)…

Limiting factor is work, and turbines.

Keef Wivaneff

WANKER!

Stephen Shrubsall

Just build the tesla coil to power it up thats if it works as well?

Nicholas Gad

Too many X-Files people on this website. When you believe in nothing, you will fall for anything. Hence religious people are less likely to need to believe things like cold fusion, crystals, chiropractics or global warming. And once those ‘believe in nothing people’ find their cause (i.e. cold fusion) they will argue it to the extreme, because they are empty and hollow inside without their radical cause.

AlainCo

Instead on sending opinion while not reading data, repeating the collective delusion of people who were incompetent, and have ruined the life of the top electrochemist of their time, please READ THE DATA !

those LENR scientist, like today Celani ex-CERN ex-INFN , Duncan of Uni Missouri (boss), are MAINSTREAM, and probably more competent than their critics.

“You wrote: “The same disconnect exists between the mainstream scientific community and the small group of LENR researchers.”There are two misapprehensions in this statement.First, all cold fusion researchers are members of the mainstream scientific community. They have to be. Only a professor with tenure, clout and independent funding could do this research, because there is tremendous opposition to it, because of academic politics. Most researchers are now retired or dead, but in the 1990s, most of them were distinguished experts such as Bockris, Gerisher, Miles, Oriani, Huggins, Yeager and Arata. The latter two have laboratories named after them. Arata has a whole building on the campus of Osaka National University named after him even though he is still alive. He also has medals from the previous and present Emperors of Japan and an international prize in his name. Arata is one of the most important people in this field. Fleischmann was a Fellow of the Royal Society and President of the Electrochemical Society.Second there are not a small number of researchers. Compared to many specialties, there are a large number. Roughly4,000 are listed in the LENR-CANR bibliography.In 1989 there were roughly 100 top academic electrochemists in the world such as Gerischer, Bockris and Yeager. It is a small field. Every one of them knew Fleischmann and Pons. By late 1990 just about every one of them replicated the Fleischmann Pons effect, and published their results. Many people outside of electrochemistry such as Arata also replicated, usually with help from electrochemists. They published unequivocal statements, such as this one from Prof. Gerischer, the Director of the Max Planck Institute for Physical Chemistry in Berlin:

“In spite of my earlier conclusion, — and that of the majority of scientists, — that the phenomena reported by Fleischmann and Pons in 1989 depended either on measurement errors or were of chemical origin, there is now undoubtedly overwhelming indications that nuclear processes take place in the metal alloys.”I summarized some of these points here: http://pages.csam.montclair.edu/~kowalski/cf/293wikipedia.html

It is not surprising you got the impression these people were from outside the mainstream. Many people think so. There are two reasons:First, this has been widely reported in the mass media, most recently a few weeks ago in Forbes. Researchers are not only accused of being outsiders, they are routinely accused of being frauds, criminals and lunatics, by the Washington Post, Time magazine and others. The spokesman for the APS writing in the New Scientists called cold fusion researchers “a cult of fervent half-wits” and “a few scientists” who “pursue cold fusion with Branch Davidian intensity.”Second, these people were in the establishment when they began, but many were thrown out. That is to say many were demoted, ridiculed, de-funded or fired outright. I do not know any researcher who did not experience this to at least some extent, and I know hundreds. Some were threatened by Members of Congress for academic fraud, or threatened with deportation. In a few cases, experimental apparatuses were trashed and in one case, I heard that horse manure was dumped on one experiment, by persons unknown. As I recall that was in Texas.You have to realize that academic politics are harsh. When you threaten someone’s funding or their theory, they will take steps to stop you. You also have to realize than when a researcher in a university or the Navy is attacked by the Washington Post or a Member of Congress, she is in very, very deep trouble with the authorities.The long and the short of it is, doing cold fusion, or talking about it, is career suicide. The situation is much worse than most people imagine. Obviously it has not been reported in the mass media. No rebuttal or statement by any cold fusion researcher has been allowed as far as I know. They are treated as criminals and lunatics. The Washington Post would as soon publish a public statement or letter from the Boston bomber as from a cold fusion researcher. When researchers complain about this, they are told they are imagining things and to stop acting like conspiracy theorists, even though the attacks against them are a matter of public record, instantly accessible on the Internet. It is a strange situation.See also: http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Hagelsteinontheoryan.pdf

“

with courage, you can check what is said there.
I imagine you won’t.
Skeptics who check the date turn convinced, like Celani, Duncan, Dawn Dominguez, …

Alain…….try taking your hand off your cock for a few moments.
If you don’t stop it….you’ll go deaf!

Keef Wivaneff

I believe the religious types are even more likely to fall for this type of crap.
If they can believe in their “invisible friend” without a shred of evidence and against all logic and commonsense then they are bound to fall for this load of old bollocks.

http://comparegoldandsilverprices.com/ Bilderberg CEO

Set the world free; publish instructions online how to build it.

FactsAreFun

How to do this: publish some lie online, wait for the morons to flock around it, ask them for “R&D” funding, collect the money, live well for a couple years, rinse, repeat.

James

It seems to me that these cold “fusion” experiments are not tapping into “fusion” at all. They are more probably tapping into zero point energy, and creating heat by doing so.

FactsAreFun

Actually, they are only tapping into the wallets of idiots who will also buy flying carpets if you have them on sale.

Brad Arnold

Check out this third-party verification of a LENR reactor that will soon hit the market: http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.3913
“Given the deliberately conservative choices made in performing the measurement, we can reasonabley state that the E-Cat HT is a non-conventional source of energy which lies between conventional chemical sources of energy and nuclear ones.” (i.e. about five orders of magnitude more energy dense than gasoline, and a COP of almost 6).

Everything you have ever heard or will ever hear about zero point energy, cold fusion (unless it is muon induced fusion, which is real but technologically useless), free energy etc. is part of a scam. This type of scam has been going on for at least 200 years, and if we count the promises to transmute cheap metals into gold, for many centuries longer.

The scammers know full well that what they are promising is impossible. They also know effective psychological techniques to gather enough morons and shills around themselves to appear part of a large anti-establishment movement. Nothing novel about that, either.

You can only take three stances here: be a smart skeptic, a moron who falls for this shite or who gives it, at least, some credence, or, and that is the most lucrative option, you can be one of the scammers.

You know who you are.

Keef Wivaneff

Excellent summary of the scam.
I’d just like to add the comment that Defkalion, Rossi and the rest can take their free energy devices and RAM THEM UP THEIR ARSE SIDEWAYS!
(have a nice day)

FactsAreFun

What? All these promises of peer reviewed papers and then not a single citation? Really?

Hmmm… looks like the free energy scammers cut and run as soon as somebody keeps asking for EVIDENCE.

:-)

Paul Collins

Rossi. Has been promising the world and delivering very little, a all his plans for factories turning out ecats by the thousands have stalled, and this is the only recent review of his work that is verifiable.

I so want the Ecat to be true , but I am still waiting for real science to be given the chance to pull it to bits and declare it real

So far we have a box that makes heat ? I want to know how!

JEFF

If you take the time to read the independent verification, it is just not really a verification just an acknowledgement that give the test conditions it looks like there is a possibility of excess power. But it also clearly states the testing method is error ridden and not reliable because of methods used and test conditions and equipment used.

AlainCo

NO

note for those who did not follow the story, and who may believe the argument soup of critics that :

– the testers unplugged and replugged all cables themselves

– the testers looked at the sockets, the cables, checked hidden wires, the weight of the boxes (for accumulators).

– they compared the temperature measured by thermocouple with the reading of IR cam, and confirmed estimated emissivity, yet they still took conservative values to avoid critics (that pretended critics did not even understood).

finally what the test critics shows is :

1- that critics are not scientific, greatly unscientific,… they are incompetent in thermography, thermodynamic, evec electricity… they assume general corruption of all… classic pseudo-science, conspiracy, denialists, political activists… anyway that is not a reason not to read the few interesting comments.

2- that thermal measurement, despite many tries, is solid and let no doubt for 500% error on energy…

3- that input electricity measurement is solid, except for a single stupid measurement : DC Voltage.

Using DC voltage is a very complex act of fraud, that assume that the author know it will not have been detected by the tester.

The DC voltage measurement could be measured easily by the testers , whenever they thought about that.

Since there was no alternative way to fool electric input, not thermal measurement, the hypothesis of fraud does not hold…

so, conclusion: it works.

this is not a surprise since Defkalion and Brillouin have similar reports.
Not a surprise since LENR is a validated fact, according to the scientific method.

Phantomflinger

Back in the eighties two British inventors claiming they had “room temperature” cold fusion, went to America to showcase it in action, they checked into the hotel, did a press conference and promptly disappeared never to be seen or heard from again. I always wondered about that, perhaps it was a flop but the sudden disinterest from the media was telling especially as my late mother was a journalist in Fleet St and could find nothing on follow up in any paper.

LENR have been replicated by the top electro-chemist of that time, yet few influential labs like MIT, cal-tech, helped by incompetence and fraud succeed in blacklisting all the success… (for details on the fraud, the incompetence, read my article and the links).

today it have been replicated in many various way, proving many different effects with many different protocols, each being replicated a numerous times…

Read the LENR survey on cold fusion in naturwissenschaften…
or one of the hundreds of peer-review papers (despite proven pathological blocking of peer-review by influential lobbies of magazines – for details read lenr-forum)

no evidence is accepted, and it is normal for such scientific revolution, as Thomas Kuhn explain well… a link to a synthesis of Kuhn is in the article

that article rejected by wikipedia admin explain how anti-scientific are the critics, denying scientific method, even denying the evidence when the face their even misunderstood theory

Probably LENR does not challenge in any way the standard model of QM, just old habits. Yeong E Kim of Purdue said it with the language of QM:

” clearly recognized that the conventional nuclear scattering theory at positive energies cannot directly be applied to nuclear reactions involving deuterons bound in a metal, which is a negative-energy bound-state problem. Quantum scattering theory describing the Coulomb barrier problem is applicable to scattering experiments with nuclear beams.When they were being criticized at the APS meeting, I was frustrated that I could not rebuke public criticisms by my nuclear theory colleagues, since I did not have an appropriate alternative theory, even though I realized that their theoretical arguments are premature.”

Maybe I simply accepted LENR because of my microelectronics education that quickly convinced me that those plasma physicist claims were simply horse manure.
Of course there is still no good theory, but that is not an excuse to deny a reproduced fact…

anyway, as i said elsewhere it is becoming industrial.
you will find the executive summary as a link inside…

the way it was rejected and industrialized is absolutely coherent with the vision of Thomas Kuhn, and Nassim Nicholas Taleb…

It will be invented by MIT after being sold, like plane.
standard procedure.

Keef Wivaneff

Fuck off you WANKER

SocraticGadfly

Rossi is so full of fucking crap. How can you run a serious piece about Norway’s test thorium reactor and then run shit like this?

Chapman

Sounds like a con job. Remember the old law of Physics, “Energy cannot be lost or gained”?

AlainCo

so you rule-out a thousands of experiments, done by hundreds of differents of researchers, dozens of institutions from a dozen of countries…

with a tiny heuristic, and just conservatism of old habits, not even supported by physics ?

because what says physics is that in a lattice nothing forbid a complex nuclear reaction involving resonance and collective behaviors…

Yeong E Kim: “I clearly recognized that the conventional nuclear scattering theory at positive energies cannot directly be applied to nuclear reactions involving deuterons bound in a metal, which is a negative-energy bound-state problem. Quantum scattering theory describing the Coulomb barrier problem is applicable to scattering experiments with nuclear beams.
When they were being criticized at the APS meeting, I was frustrated that I could not rebuke public criticisms by my nuclear theory colleagues, since I did not have an appropriate alternative theory, even though I realized that their theoretical arguments are premature.”

explain how unscientific are the usual critics. Unscientific to a point it make me feel sick.

I hope you don’t recognize yourselk in those sophism :
———————-
If something violate their restricted plasma physicist vision of physics, it can only be error:

“Furthermore, if the claimed excess heat exceeds that possible by other conventional processes (chemical, mechanical, etc.), one must conclude that an error has been made in measuring the excess heat.”

If it violate the theory, no experiment can be accepted

“It would not matter to me if a thousand other investigations were to subsequently perform experiments that see excess heat. These results may all be correct, but it would be an insult to these investigators to connect them with Pons and Fleischmann. . . . Putting the ‘Cold Fusion’ issue on the same page with Wien, Rayleigh-Jeans, Davison Germer, Einstein, and Planck is analogous to comparing a Dick Tracy comic book story with the Bible.” [7]

————————-

I have no doubt that as the majority of pretended scientist you are violating the scientific method… Don’t feel ashamed, you are the majority, the consensus.

I’m not a scientists, but an engineer, and fact goes before theory.
I have knowledge in semiconductor physics, and this make me knowledgable and modest enough to have the same opinion as Yeong E Kim…

Using aerodynamic to explain how mole moves in the ground, is stupid. So stupid that you cannot imagine that a physicist is not honestly aware of that absurdity… Of course Thomas Kuhn explain that during a paradigm change, delusion and selective blindness of “normal science” is the rule, not the exception.
The real problem of LENr is there is still no theory… nothing else.
Would LENr have a theory and no evidence, it would have been accepted immediately like some theory that rule the world.

and whatever you think about mole, facts goes before theory.
If mole fly, you have to admit it and find how and why, not just to say it is impossible.
Even artifact and errors have to be proven.

Keef Wivaneff

Alain we all know that you are part of the scam so why don’t you just go and take a FLYING FUCK AT YOURSELF?

Keef Wivaneff

Fucking HORSESHIT!
It gets hot because it has a FUCKING GREAT BIG HEATING ELEMENT INSIDE IT!
That’s it, nothing happening here folks…….except for…….
A FUCKING HUGE GREAT SCAM!
Take your cold fusion crapola and SHOVE IT UP YER ARSE

Keef Wivaneff

WANKERS!!!!

Keef Wivaneff

WANKERS!!!!

Joe Shmozler

I can get you in on the ground floor. Send your check or money orders to Shmozler Industries.

http://www.facebook.com/people/Pete-J-Morris/617987570 Pete J Morris

Where is Musk – he loves scams – specially if he can pay for them via PayPal

http://www.friv2friv3friv4.com/ friv 2 friv 3 friv 4

I am a physicist. That’s why I require evidence and don’t care about anything else.

AlainCo

so you are satisfied… LENR is real.

happy to see you happy.

You are much more scientific than most physicist who just refuse to see what they cannot understand, or simply parrot what their colleagues parrot ?

http://www.friv2friv3friv4.com/ friv 2 friv 3 friv 4

So, you are saying that something can be true, but it doesn’t matter
because only evidence counts?? Nullifying the evidence that LENR is
genuine, and that the E-Cat HT has been independently verified, won’t
make it untrue. Wow, you sure are dense buddy. Classic distorted
thinking – there is plenty of evidence of that in your comments.

http://www.friv2friv3friv4.com/ friv 2 friv 3 friv 4

I hope it soon to a reality

Jeremy Blanchard

it’s most likely a not-quite cold fusion reactor; though dammed close. Give the real scientists a pat on the back and conclude that their testing is accurate in that fusion is taking place. If what I think it’s doing is correct, it would be more of a super-efficient heat dissipation through the extra electrons floating around, kind of like how aerogels work.

The pressure required to make the fusion happen also coincidentally make a particular crystallization strata become viable for the electrons/ions to flow without a large impedence factor.

http://www.facebook.com/cees.timmerman Cees Timmerman

Why doesn’t Rossi let people look inside his magic hat so people can get the divine wisdom first hand? Hasn’t he patented it in enough countries yet? Greedy.

AlainCo

no need to look inside. just do like defkalion, brillouin, enea, NRL, SRI, BARC, NASA, CEA, Shell, Amoco, Robert Duncann, Celani, Focardi … make experiments… and admit it works…

those guys did the jobs and confirmed…
when they show the evidence, you don’t admit it, and you don’t try to hear them explain how to make it works…

Rossi, like defkalion, like Brillouin won’t let you open the black box.

it is not scientifically serious to claim that a blackbox test is faked because you cannot open the box…

it just shows a perfect lack of honesty.

at best you give evidence of calorimetry weakness, but for now they just moan that IR cam and powermeter are not precise and can make 500% error whan handled by physicists (I agree it would be better handled by electricians and motorists)…

http://www.facebook.com/cees.timmerman Cees Timmerman

No need to look inside to confirm nickel having turned into copper? Have they used Archimedes’ principle, then?

http://www.facebook.com/cees.timmerman Cees Timmerman

Apparently my comment from 18 October disappeared. Good thing i keep copies for just such an occasion:

No need to look inside to confirm nickel having turned into copper? Have they used Archimedes’ principle, then?

http://www.facebook.com/cees.timmerman Cees Timmerman

I wonder whether the censorship will show up when the comment is replied to.

William Carr

That’s easy, he wants to be rich, and he knows that Tesla died in Poverty.

http://www.facebook.com/cees.timmerman Cees Timmerman

So did Maurice Ward, despite their noble ideals.

Protip: Anyone who has a billion to spare can afford to wait.

John Double

People are acting like this could be the death of oil corporations

MP3’s weren’t the death of the music corporations…

Oil Companies could simply move onto a subscription service of sorts where you pay 50 dollars a month..
Somebody has to maintain the systems.

Tautoulogic

You are wrong.

It may not be `the end of oil corporations`.

But it certainly could be a huge blow to their financials no matter how you twist it.
“MP3’s weren’t the death of the music corporations…”
But they were the death of the CD.

Also from a cultural perspective, one could argue that the music industry is now certainly more `decentralized` as compared to the era without MP3’s (and related computer technologies).

Also, the use of alternative media, almost exclusively spread trough modern computer technologies, such as MP3 radio show podcasts. Has also caused strong cultural changes and decentralization within some segments of society.

Such technologies as described here can hopefully decentralize the distribution of energy.

Well at least a little less centralized as it is now.
(Where the major oil companies are controlled by a small cabal of Judeo-russian crime syndicates, British MI6, Rothschild, American banks and Dutch Royalty)

True it will probably not bring about total revolution but to think nothing will change for the oil industry or to suggest their influence will not be affected is not true either.

John Double

“But they were the death of the CD.”
Everyone hated the fact that you pay for a full cd,for one or two songs.
The MP3 was a revolution for the music industry.

You could argue the companies made more money by having people purchase individual songs,than one or two cds year.

I think that the music industry is better off,by having a more diverse means of profit,rather than mostly relying on CD stores.

I would pay 100 dollars a month for a heat,electricity,and “fuel” for my cars.

The biolitestove produces energy off the heat generated by the stove fire.
Maybe all we would all we need to do is scale up the stove..

Don’t forget Plastic and lubricants use oil.

HML

Oil and natural gas are used for fertilizer. it’s not going away until there is no more of it left.

I would love to see an alternative to fossil fuel energy that was cheap and clean, I’m not sure it’s possible. These alternatives ways to produce energy, like cold fusion, hot fusion and now this He3 is looking like they should be in the over unity devices archives.

jade cereno

I hope this answers our power needs and stop depending on petroleum

Donk970

It seems to me, reading many of the posts here, that there are a great many people who feel threatened by the idea that there might be “something new under the sun”. Instead of being curious about the possibility that there is some unknown process at work that is producing “anomalous heat” they instead fall back on scientific dogma and claim that since current theories don’t allow it, it must not be happening. That’s not science, that’s religion.

Jeremiah Karl

lol the secret sauce is crystals(zeolite in particular)!Nanotechnology at its best!

zbret .

If they don’t want to reveal the secret sauce, that is fine by me. Just start leasing them. If it works, it takes the world by storm. Otherwise, we may have to peruse more tested nuclear technology such as LFTR or even AP1000 reactors.

Gary

My apologies if I am misunderstanding the article, but what I gathered is that apparently:
1. Giving hydrogen more electrons than it would ever want in its valence shell of two will somehow miraculously create neutrons, a neutral particle.
2. That this neutral particle will be forced into the nucleus of Nickel, and then stripped of electrons, the same particle the neutron was supposedly transmuted from and wouldn’t have surrounding it in the first place being NEUTRAL.
3. Suddenly, by addition of a neutron made of electrons, stripped of electrons, and somehow transmuted into a proton, Nickel is transformed into Copper. On a side note, if you add a neutron to Nickel, it is still Nickel. It’s just an isotope. Possibly radioactive and unstable.

Quantum physicists, feel free to correct me, but I’ve studied chemistry. This article is either written by a half-wit journalist or is totally bogus.

Derec01

It’s not about the valence shell of the hydrogen, it’s about flipping a quark inside a neutron. Technically a neutron can decay into a proton plus an electron plus an anti-neutrino, and the opposite reaction can take place.

It’s the kind of thing that is a plausible story if you don’t look at it too closely but I don’t see any possible way you are at the energies necessary to do something that usually only happens in high energy particle colliders.

Frank_Truth

The true scientist always keeps an open mind. People who have a PhD who think they know it all are idiots.

nitemarejim

Where’s the Amazing Randi when you need him to debunk scammers??

ghendric

re:”If Rossi and Focardi’s cold
fusion technology turns out to be real — if the E-Cat really has 10,000
times the energy density and 1,000 times the power density of gasoline —
then the world will change, very, very quickly.”

…we can only hope and pray… I would love to tell OPEC to shove it…

JOEBLO

This will be so in about 500 years when we run out of oil. The status quo will squash this.. Bullshit wars were fought for oil, and you think this great idea will fly? PLEASE!

Disasterjunkie

You don’t have to be an expert to know that the oil/carbon monopoly that controls the world does not want any type of NRG industry from affecting their profits from solar NRG, to hemp as a bio fuel and now cold fusion, yet it is funny how after they debunked this theory by no other than the glorious MIT, those involved in hot fusion got tons of financial grants…. even a child can see the link here, course if the US thinks they can hold back the world by protecting its petro dollar then they have a whole new world of troubles coming their way, let America keep her oil and the wold can evolve.

http://www.friv2friv3friv4.com/ friv 2 friv 3 friv 4

I don’t know why you are so averse of making your point the one and only right way: by presenting reproducible evidence.

Jm dedelreu

If true, able to heat any house cheaply, many others strange methods will be working, up to the living animals and bacteria using cold fusion and making nuclear transmutations with low energy, like observed by Kervran, 50 years ago, in France, with many experiments to test !! And all of our knowledge in physics will be stirred and turned upside down.

shjacks55

Copper has 2 stable isotopes, 63 and 65. Nickel has many stable isotopes, 62 is 3.6% and 64 is 0.9%. Energy difference between Ni and Cu isotopes is small. Having worked for electroplating concerns, under high currents small atoms are jammed together into interstitial locations smaller than the tunneling distance (e.g. 6Li+2H=8Be, 7Li+1H=8Be, 19F+1H=20Ne, 23Na+1H=24Mg, 11B+1H=12C, 39K+1H=40Ca (latter 3 recorded by Japanese researchers; the first by Fleishman-Pons) all would yield significant energy and be energetially possible. Ni atoms in the metal lattice would probably not react. Sorry. Fail. (Note some of these reactions occur with high energy Protons like an accelerator.)

Jon Donnelly

This can’t be allowed you will see this research buried deep and the scientists humiliated, bankrupted and assassinated if necessary. The only way is prevent this is for the scientists to publish their research and how to duplicate this as soon as possible, all over the internet and and bypass the patents.

Rod

If Rossi has cracked cold fusion then he will follow the fate of most other scientists/ inventors who offer a cheap alternative to fossil fuels. They seem to commit suicide, have a fatal accident or get murdered. He needs to set up a death trigger, so that if he dies his secrets are sent to all the leading scientists in the world.

http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

I don’t think there will be such conspiracy. As well described in Beaudette’s book,

“Because of a spate of biases, historians are prone to epiphenomena and other illusions of cause and effect. To understand the history of technology, you need accounts by nonhistorians, or historians with the right frame of mind who developed their ideas by watching the formation of technologies, instead of just reading accounts concerning it. I mentioned earlier Terence Kealey’s debunking of the so-called linear model and that he was a practicing scientist.

A practicing laboratory scientist, or an engineer, can witness the real-life production of, say, pharmacological innovations or the jet engine and can thus avoid falling for epiphenomena, unless he was brainwashed prior to starting practice.

I have seen evidence—as an eyewitness—of results that owe nothing to academizing science, rather evolutionary tinkering that was dressed up and claimed to have come from academia.”

this chapter like the previous is bloody against academics.

My position today is that academics are structurally (not individually) opposed to innovation, having impeded most revolution, and always rewriting history to prove they are useful, and source of all innovation they opposed.

“Evil” (make me laugh) business like Amoco, Shell, Toyota, Mitsubishi, like Military-Industrial complex (Nasa, DoD,Navy, weapon makers), have tried to pass the barrier established by academics, but they were not strong enough…

Nurettin Onur Tuğcu

so why don’t I have an e-cat in my house right now?

Dogswald

Where is the follow update regarding this hoax?

Turing

One born every minute.

Tom Robbins

Wow the pessimism of some of you astounds me, I can only assume these are the extreme so-called “liberals” a humourless lot that love Star Trek but think we should all go back to living in the woods (until they have to do so). Maybe you should read up on something before you call it a hoax. Global warming that you cling to is the hoax of the century…watch all the anger toward this comment, they can’t help it. The funny thing is you are happier with crying “the sky is falling” but you contribute nothing, just sit back and play your video games and bitch about everyone and everything…

problem is some people have a theory, then some facts dissents, and then they menace the dissenters and there is a consensus. few decade pass and then it explodes.

Tom Robbins

I applaud people who are hopeful, and I agree that getting this technology (if real and I don’t think France and England would be dumping millions into working cold fusion reactors, if it were not) to the public faces daunting opposition, but it will happen when we are desperate enough…when the pain exceeds that reward of fossil fuels, not because of the hoax of global warming -which is just a stunt to make investors filthy rich with politicians in their pocket getting more tax revenue using “carbon credits”- But because it poisons our air and water and causes so much more disease and cancer than nuclear ever did or will, AND the demand for energy with triple in 100 years…

YeahRight

Ah, a religious believer! How cute.

Samuele Martini

It’s seems never and storry

http://www.beachbodycoach.com/dark4181 Brandon McNaughton

If the device is really that hot, why isn’t that cheap metal rack melting?

Do you need personal loan? Does your firm,company or industry need financial assistance? Do you need finance to start your business? Do you need finance to expand your business? We give out loan to interested inviduals who are seeking loan with good faith. Are you seriously in need of an urgent loan contac us at Email: honestloan10@gmail.com
APPLICATION DETAILS
Your Full Details:
Full Name:
Loan Amount Need:
Loan Duration:
Phone Number:
Applied before?
State:
Monthly Income:
Country:
You are to send this to our Company Email Address: honestloan10@gmail.com

marsha

I am a private loan lender which have all take to be a genuine lender i give out the best loan to my client at a very convenient rate.The interest rate of this loan is 3%.i give out loan to public and private individuals.the maximum amount i give out in this loan is $1,000,000.00 USD why the minimum amount i give out is 5000.for more information contact us email honestloan10@gmail.com
Your Full Details:
Full Name :………
Country :………….
state:………….
Sex :………….
Address…………
Tel :………….
Occupation :……..
Amount Required :…………
Purpose of the Loan :……..
Loan Duration :…………
Phone Number :………
Contact email:honestloan10@gmail.com

rossi e-cat is a scam he promissed market out in 2010 today is 2015 hello buyers …and university of cornell did not test the device rossi tested in a “black box” and the energy input and output were close … so it is just a water heater with a thermal electric generator, all in a very expensive black box ! I saw the video with power input and output there is nothing “nuclear” about that device thrust me or thrust your senses

YeahRight

It’s the modern version of the perpetual motion machine scam. Nothing to see, move on, folks.

Use of this site is governed by our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Copyright 1996-2015 Ziff Davis, LLC.PCMag Digital Group All Rights Reserved. ExtremeTech is a registered trademark of Ziff Davis, LLC. Reproduction in whole or in part in any form or medium without express written permission of Ziff Davis, LLC. is prohibited.